Delhi High Court Orders Status Quo On Sale Of Dr Reddy's 'Olympic' Drug In Novo Nordisk's 'Ozempic' Trademark Suit

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed status quo on the sale and distribution of Dr. Reddy's anti-diabetic drug marketed under the mark “Olympic”, after Danish pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk filed a trademark infringement suit alleging deceptive similarity with its globally known diabetes drug “Ozempic”.

Novo Nordisk approached the court, claiming that Dr. Reddy's had begun promotional activities and was on the verge of launching, or had already launched, a semaglutide injection under the impugned mark, prompting urgent intervention to prevent the product from entering the market during the pendency of the proceedings.

During the hearing, Justice Jyoti Singh observed that there appeared to be prima facie phonetic similarity between the rival marks and noted that the legal threshold for confusion is stricter in cases involving medicinal products.

Counsel for Novo Nordisk submitted that Ozempic is a “coined and fanciful mark” in use since 2014 and registered in over 100 countries, and that the drug has generated approximately $63 billion in global sales in the last five years.

The plaintiff argued that in pharmaceutical trademark disputes, the applicable standard is not merely likelihood of confusion but the “mere existence of the slightest possibility of confusion”, relying on precedents including McLeod's Pharma and Cadila Healthcare.

Describing Dr. Reddy's adoption of the name as being “over clever by half”, the plaintiff contended that the similarity was especially dangerous because both products contain semaglutide and are sold through the same trade channels. Counsel also relied on judicial observations that “physicians are not immune from confusion or mistakes” and that prescriptions are often telephoned or handwritten, increasing the risk of dispensing errors where drug names sound alike.

Justice Singh expressed concern after comparing the two marks.

“Speaking for myself, I have to strain myself… to find the difference. Structurally, visually, and phonetically,” the Court remarked.

The Court further noted:

“I feel no matter how discerning a customer may be, it's difficult. Considering it's the same semaglutide and the same trade channels.”

Dr. Reddy's counsel argued that the marks were phonetically dissimilar and pointed to the prominent use of the company's house mark on the packaging, contending that consumers would not confuse the source of the products.

However, the Court was not convinced by the structural comparison.

“Unless you keep the two marks side by side, how do we understand structural difference,” Justice Singh observed, adding that the law requires the mark to be judged from the perspective of a consumer who does not have both products before them.

As the matter was taking up much time, the court decided to take up the matter after lunch. 

After the lunch recess, the court indicated that its initial impression remained unchanged.

“According to me, there is a phonetic similarity… And in a pharma, it's a threshold which I would not like to pass. I looked at it more carefully during lunchtime. Believe me, I did.”

The court also suggested a possible resolution, noting that media reports and online listings indicated that Dr. Reddy's had marketed the same semaglutide injection under the name “Obeda”, for which it already holds rights.

“I would rather that you go up this path. It's a little change of a name here and there. Both of you live peacefully,” the Judge said, warning that interim orders can have lasting consequences.

“These kind of stay orders in the media have their own repercussions on a brand's name or a brand's credibility.”

When Dr. Reddy's sought time to obtain instructions from its management, the Court directed that no further commercial activity should take place under the impugned mark in the meantime.

“Whatever is where will freeze as of now. As is, where is, basis. It will freeze as of now, that's it.”

Clarifying the scope of the direction, the Court added:

“Nobody moves it; the distributor doesn't sell it into the market. You don't send to the distributor.”

The matter has been listed as the first item on Friday, by which time Dr. Reddy's is expected to inform the court whether it will modify the mark or contest the injunction application.