Delhi High Court Rules Intas' BEVATAS Does Not Infringe Sun Pharma's BEVETEX Trademark

The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of Intas Pharmaceuticals, setting aside a permanent injunction that had restrained the company from using its trademark 'BEVATAS' for its anti-cancer drug.

A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that Intas' mark 'BEVATAS' does not infringe Sun Pharma Laboratories' registered trademark 'BEVETEX', allowed the appeal and dismissed Sun Pharma's suit.

The dispute dates back to December 2017, when Sun Pharma filed a suit alleging that Intas' mark 'BEVATAS', used for its Bevacizumab-based cancer drug, was deceptively similar to its own mark 'BEVETEX', used for a Paclitaxel-based cancer drug.

Sun Pharma claimed trademark infringement, passing off and unfair competition, and sought damages, rendition of accounts and a permanent injunction.

Intas had launched 'BEVATAS' in 2016, stating that the name was coined by combining 'BEVA' from the molecule Bevacizumab and 'TAS' from its corporate name, Intas.

The trial court had refused to grant an interim injunction in September 2018, finding the marks to be structurally, phonetically and visually different. That finding was upheld by a Division Bench of the High Court in January 2020, and the Supreme Court dismissed Sun Pharma's special leave petition in February 2020.

After trial, however, a Single Judge of the High Court granted a permanent injunction in March 2026, holding that the marks were deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion. Intas challenged that decision before the Division Bench.

The appellate court held that a post-trial finding of likelihood of confusion must be supported by evidence led by the plaintiff and cannot rest merely on a comparison of the rival marks. It observed that a conclusion drawn only from visual comparison of marks could, at best, amount to a prima facie view and not a final finding after trial.

On the marks themselves, the court held that the prefixes 'BEV' and 'BEVA' are derived from the International Non-Proprietary Name (INN) 'Bevacizumab' and are commonly used in the pharmaceutical trade by several manufacturers. It therefore held that these elements are publici juris and commonly available for use in the pharmaceutical trade.

The Bench found that the distinguishing portions of the marks, namely the suffixes 'TAS' and 'TEX', are phonetically distinct and create “entirely different auditory impressions”.

The court further held that although both products are anti-cancer drugs falling within Class 5 pharmaceutical preparations, they are distinct in composition, therapeutic indications and treatment profiles. Bevacizumab and Paclitaxel are different molecules used for different purposes and are not therapeutic substitutes, the court noted.

“The drugs which are not interchangeable or do not serve the same therapeutic purpose are for all intents and purposes dissimilar,” the bench observed.

The court also rejected Sun Pharma's contention that a chemist might dispense one drug in place of the other if the prescribed drug was unavailable. Holding that such an argument was founded on the possibility of gross negligence, the court said it did not meet the legal threshold required to establish a likelihood of confusion.

Accordingly, the Division Bench allowed Intas' appeal, set aside the permanent injunction granted by the Single Judge and dismissed Sun Pharma's suit.