Delhi High Court Restrains Maxx Farmacia From Using 'MAXX-RICH' Mark, Trade Dress In Cipla's Plea

The Delhi High Court on 29 May granted an ad-interim injunction in favour of Cipla Health Limited and restrained Maxx Farmacia India LLP and two other defendants from using the mark 'MAXX-RICH' and its associated trade dress for multivitamins, iron tonics, syrups and antibiotics in a trademark infringement and passing off suit.

Justice Jyoti Singh also barred the defendants from marketing, selling or advertising the impugned products under the challenged mark or deceptively similar packaging until the next date of hearing. She remarked:

“Defendants are attempting to come as close as possible to the Plaintiffs so as to encash on its formidable goodwill and reputation and pass off their goods as those of the Plaintiffs. Needless to state, this is resulting in irreparable damage to the Plaintiffs' reputation and goodwill and more importantly, the confusion arising from near identity of the trade dress with deceptively similar trademark will be extremely detrimental to public interest.”

Cipla Health Limited, the registered proprietor of the mark MAXIRICH, stated that it adopted the trademark in 2003 for nutritional supplements. It originally conceived the mark and later transferred it to Cipla Health under a Business Transfer Agreement.

The company holds registrations for MAXIRICH and its variants, including MAXIRICH ZINCPLUS, MAXIRICH KIDS and MAXIRICH JUNIORS in Class 5. It also holds copyright over a distinctive trade dress featuring a projectile-shaped boundary motif, a silhouette of a jumping figure, and a red-maroon-black colour combination.

Maxx Farmacia India LLP and two related entities operating websites marinelifesciences.in and saitechmedicare.in registered the marks MAXX-RICH and AZOMAXX on a “proposed to be used” basis in 2015. The defendants marketed multivitamin softgel capsules that Cipla Health alleged copied its trade dress almost entirely.

Senior Counsel Swathi Sukumar argued that the defendants had mala fide adopted the trade dress with an intent to closely mimic Cipla Health's packaging and goodwill.

The Court agreed and found that the defendants copied nearly identical trade dress in terms of get-up, layout, colour combination, and motifs, including a projectile-shaped boundary and a silhouette of a jumping figure on the packaging. It also noted that confusion in pharmaceutical products can have serious consequences, particularly in relation to antibiotics such as Azithromycin tablets involved in the dispute.

Accordingly, the Bench restrained the defendants from using the impugned mark or any deceptively similar packaging until the next date of hearing.

The matter is listed to be heard again on 7 October 2026.