Bombay High Court Cancels DUPHACHRIT Trademark, Finds It Similar To Abbott's DUPHA Marks

The Bombay High Court has ordered the cancellation of the trademark "DUPHACHRIT", holding that it was deceptively similar to Abbott Product Operations AG's family of "DUPHA" marks used for pharmaceutical products.

Justice Arif S. Doctor passed the order on June 15, 2026, while allowing a rectification petition filed by Abbott seeking removal of the mark from the Register of Trade Marks.

"I don't have the slightest hesitation in holding that the rival marks are deceptively similar and that a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection would in all likelihood associate 'DUPHACHRIT' with the Petitioner and perceive it to be a part of the Petitioner's 'DUPHA' family of marks. In my view, such likelihood of confusion and association is sufficient to attract the provisions of Sections 11(1), 11(2), 11(3), and 11(10)(ii) of the Act," the Court held.

Abbott traced its rights in the marks to 1949, when its predecessor, Dutch Pharmaceuticals, coined the term "DUPHAR" from the words "Dutch Pharmaceuticals." The company told the Court that ownership of the marks passed through successive entities before being acquired by Abbott from Solvay Pharmaceuticals in 2010.

The company relied on eight registered word marks in Class 5 carrying "DUPHA" as a prefix, including DUPHAR, DUPHASTON and DUPHALAC. The earliest registration, for DUPHAR, dates back to March 22, 1951.

According to Abbott, it discovered Menschlich Healthcare (OPC) Private Limited's registration for "DUPHACHRIT" in August 2024 and issued a cease-and-desist notice. Menschlich declined to withdraw the mark and maintained that the competing marks were phonetically dissimilar.

Before the Court, Abbott's counsel Hiren Kamod argued that Menschlich had simply taken the distinctive "DUPHA" element and added the suffix "CHRIT". He also pointed out that the application had been filed on a "proposed to be used" basis and that no evidence of commercial use had been produced.

Appearing in person, Menschlich director Chander M. Negi argued that Abbott did not hold a standalone registration for "DUPHA" and could not claim exclusivity over the prefix. He further contended that trademark rights attach to a mark as a whole and not to individual components.

The Court was not persuaded. Referring to the principles laid down in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., it found that DUPHACHRIT was "phonetically, aurally, structurally, and visually deceptively similar" to Abbott's DUPHA family of marks, particularly DUPHASTON. The judgment also noted that both DUPHACHRIT and DUPHASTON contained the same active pharmaceutical ingredient, dydrogesterone.

"The entire identity and association with the Petitioner's products is based on the prefix 'DUPHA', which forms an integral and is a consistent part of the Petitioner's 'DUPHA family of marks' and the real source identifier of the Petitioner's products," the Court observed.

On the question of adoption, the Court found that Menschlich had offered no meaningful explanation for choosing the term "DUPHA", which it described as neither generic nor descriptive in the pharmaceutical trade.

"The adoption of the impugned mark appears to be a deliberate attempt to ride upon the reputation and goodwill built up by the Petitioner over several decades," the Court observed.

It ultimately directed cancellation and removal of the "DUPHACHRIT" registration. No order as to costs was passed.