Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of KREOFLAT Trademark Over Similarity To Abbott's PANKREOFLAT

The Delhi High Court has ordered removal of the registered trademark “KREOFLAT” from the Register of Trade Marks after holding it deceptively similar to Abbott Products Operations AG's mark “PANKREOFLAT.”

In a judgment delivered on February 26, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela allowed a rectification petition filed under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The Court held that in the case of medicinal and pharmaceutical products, the “threshold laid down for deciding deceptive similarity is very low.”

Abbott sought cancellation of the mark “KREOFLAT,” registered on April 15, 2021, in Class 5 in the name of Aprajita Sushma, proprietor of Alrom Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. It contended that the mark was deceptively similar to its prior registered mark “PANKREOFLAT,” registered on March 16, 1964.

The Court recorded that the petitioner is the prior adopter, prior user and registered proprietor of the mark.

It noted that “PANKREOFLAT” is an invented and coined term with no dictionary meaning. The mark is used for a medicinal formulation containing Pancreatin and Dimethicone for digestive disorders.

The petitioner placed sales figures on record showing Indian sales rising from Rs.21.1 crores in 2017 to Rs.34.7 crores in 2024.

Aprajita Sushma contended that “KREOFLAT” was independently coined and distinguishable. It claimed goodwill and commercial use since 2020.

However, the Court recorded that no formal reply to the petition was filed and no documentary evidence was placed on record to substantiate claims of commercial use.

On merits, the Court found that between “PANKREOFLAT” and “KREOFLAT” there is visual similarity and that the respondent's mark is “phonetically and structurally deceptively similar.”

It held that the respondent had copied the essential and distinctive part of the mark by removing the prefix “PAN.”

The Court observed that the adoption of “KREOFLAT” was neither honest nor independent, but an attempt to “ride upon the goodwill and reputation acquired by the petitioner.”

It further held that “an unwary consumer of average intelligence would undoubtedly be confused or deceived” if confronted with the two products.

The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to rectify the Register by removing the mark “KREOFLAT” within four weeks.