'Bare Possibility Of Confusion' Enough In Pharma Marks: Bombay High Court Restrains Use Of 'ACIPROX'

The Bombay High Court has granted an interim injunction in favor of Alkem Laboratories. It has restrained Numen Pharma Private Limited from manufacturing, selling, or marketing pharmaceutical products under the trademark 'ACIPROX', holding it to be phonetically similar to Alkem's registered mark 'ALCIPRO'.

Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, on June 8, 2026, made absolute the interim application filed by Alkem. The court observed that the company had made out a prima facie case for both trademark infringement and passing off.

"It is the bare possibility test which is required to be applied in case of medicinal preparations and even the bare possibility of confusion is liable to be arrested. Considering the rival marks against the background of multi-lingual society in India coupledwith illiteracy, which was considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench, in my view, the two marks are capable of creating confusion by reason of their phonetic similarity.", the court observed. 

Alkem secured registration of the trademark 'ALCIPRO' on April 4, 1990 in Class 5. The registration remains valid and subsisting. The drug contains the active pharmaceutical ingredient Ciprofloxacin. It is used to treat bacterial infections, urinary tract infections, and infections of the nose, throat, skin, soft tissues and lungs.

Numen Pharma was incorporated in 2023. It uses the mark 'ACIPROX' for a drug containing Aceclofenac. The drug is prescribed for short-term relief of pain, inflammation and swelling in musculoskeletal conditions.

Alkem learnt of Numen's trademark application in December 2023 and filed a notice of opposition. In response, Numen filed an affidavit claiming use of the mark since 2023. Alkem subsequently instituted the present suit and obtained an ad-interim injunction in October 2025.

Numen opposed continuation of the injunction on several grounds. It argued that 'CIPRO' is a descriptive term commonly used to denote Ciprofloxacin. It contended that Alkem was effectively seeking to monopolise the molecule.

Numen further argued that 'ACIPROX' was phonetically distinct. According to it, the mark would be pronounced as "A-SI-PROX", whereas 'ALCIPRO' would be pronounced as "AL-SI-PROX".

The court rejected these submissions. On the issue of phonetic similarity, Justice Deshmukh noted that Numen was effectively inviting the court to compare the rival marks syllable by syllable to establish dissimilarity. The court ruled such a course had been expressly disapproved by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Meghmani Lifesciences Ltd.

The court held that "The rival marks ACIPROX versus ALCIPRO, when compared as whole are phonetically similar, and the mispronunciation or hurried utterance of the words would be similar sounding. There is also possibility of the terminating alphabet “X” being slurred over and the Defendant's trade mark ending with the consonant “X” is not sufficient to hold that there is no phonetic similarity between the two marks."

The court held that Alkem had prima facie established goodwill and reputation through its long-standing use of the mark. It also relied on the company's sales turnover of ₹13.97 crore in 2023.

The court further found that the balance of convenience lay in favour of Alkem. It noted that Alkem's mark had been registered since 1990, whereas Numen was incorporated only in 2023. The court therefore made the injunction absolute.

Accordingly, Numen has been restrained from using the mark 'ACIPROX'. It has also been restrained from using any other mark that is identical or deceptively similar to 'ALCIPRO' pending final disposal of the suit.