Bombay High Court Restores Interim Injunction Against 'ESIRAFT', Finds Similarity With Sun Pharma's 'RACIRAFT'

The Bombay High Court has restored an interim injunction restraining Meghmani Lifesciences Ltd. from using the trademark “ESIRAFT”, finding it too similar to Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.'s drug brand “RACIRAFT”.

A Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande, in its April 8, 2026 order, allowed Sun Pharma's appeal and set aside a single judge's December 23, 2025 decision that had refused interim relief.

The court held that the rival marks were deceptively similar, noting that even if their prefixes appear different, the phonetic similarity could lead to confusion.

“In our view 'RACIRAFT' is deceptively similar to 'ESIRAFT' of the Respondent and though visually there may be dis-similarity in their prefixes, the phonetic similarity and the possibility of confusion on its mispronunciation, satisfy the test of deceptive similarity,” the bench said.

Sun Pharma had approached the division bench after a single judge vacated an earlier ad-interim injunction granted in April 2025. The company argued that Meghmani's mark was phonetically and structurally similar and was being used for identical medicinal products containing the same Sodium Alginate-based formulation.

It also contended that the single judge had erred by breaking the marks into parts instead of comparing them as a whole, warning that confusion in pharmaceutical products could pose serious risks to patients.

Meghmani Lifesciences, on the other hand, argued that the suffix “RAFT” is commonly used in the pharmaceutical industry to describe a drug delivery mechanism linked to Sodium Alginate, and therefore no company can claim exclusive rights over it. The company pointed to numerous similar marks on the trademark register using the same suffix.

The division bench acknowledged that “RAFT” may be indicative of the product's characteristics, but stressed that trademarks must be assessed in their entirety. It reiterated that even a possibility of confusion must be avoided in the case of medicines.

“In given situation, it is possible that the confusion or mistake in prescribing the actual drug may have disastrous consequences and it is, therefore, necessary to avoid any confusion or mistake in pharmaceutical products,” the court observed.

Setting aside the earlier order, the bench held that allowing the use of “ESIRAFT” could mislead consumers and would be against public interest, particularly given the higher standard required in assessing similarity between medicinal products.