Delhi HC Temporarily Restrains Finecure From Using 'PANTOPACID' Mark In Sun Pharma 'PANTOCID' Dispute

The Delhi High Court on 1 July granted an interim injunction restraining Finecure Pharmaceuticals from manufacturing or selling pharmaceutical products under the mark 'PANTOPACID', holding that it infringes Sun Pharma Laboratories' registered trademark 'PANTOCID'.

A Division Bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora set aside a Single Judge's order that had refused injunctive relief despite finding infringement, and allowed Sun Pharma's appeal. They observed:

"In these facts, in our considered opinion, presumption of prima facie validity under Section 31(1) of the Act could not have been disregarded by the learned Single Judge, at the interlocutory stage, as the facts required for attracting the ground of Section 11(1)(a) of the Act had ceased to exist, in the year 2019, with the removal of the Takeda registration of the mark 'PANTOCID'."

Sun Pharma claimed it has been selling a Pantoprazole-based drug under the trademark 'PANTOCID' since 1999, used for treating acidity and related stomach conditions.

Finecure Pharmaceuticals manufactures a competing drug under the mark 'PANTOPACID', having adopted it in December 2007 and filed for registration in April 2009, an application still pending opposition by Sun Pharma.

After discovering Finecure's product being sold in Delhi and on e-commerce platforms in April 2023, Sun Pharma filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction along with an interim injunction application.

The Single Judge, while expressly holding that 'PANTOPACID' was structurally, phonetically and visually similar to 'PANTOCID' and infringed it, nonetheless refused interim injunction.

The Division Bench noted at the outset that the Single Judge's finding of infringement had not been challenged by Finecure through cross-objections, and independently affirmed that 'PANTOPACID' is deceptively similar to 'PANTOCID'.

It held that the Single Judge had failed to consider the presumption of prima facie validity under Section 31(1) of the Act at the interlocutory stage. It observed that the requirements for invoking Section 11(1)(a) had ceased to exist in 2019, upon removal of the Takeda registration for the mark 'PANTOCID'.

However, the Bench left certain issues open for trial, noting a genuine dispute raised by Finecure regarding the authenticity of invoices relied upon by Sun Pharma for the period 1999 to 2005, as well as a Chartered Accountant certificate for 2012–13. It observed:

"No party can be permitted to approach the Court with fake documents and to this extent, the Appellant will have to satisfy the Court at trial with respect to the genuineness of its invoices."

The Court directed this issue to be adjudicated at trial, as well as in pending proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further, it clarified that while delay would not defeat interim relief in view of the infringement finding and public interest in pharmaceutical trade, it would have a bearing on Sun Pharma's claim for damages, which would not extend to the period prior to 2023.

The Bench restrained Finecure, its distributors, dealers, and retailers from manufacturing, selling or advertising any pharmaceutical products under 'PANTOPACID', 'PANTOPACID D', 'PANTOPACID SR' or any deceptively similar mark.

The Court also noted that although the suit was filed in 2023 and pleadings were completed the same year, the Single Judge had still not framed issues even after three years. It directed the parties to assist the Single Judge in framing issues at the next hearing on 25 August 2026, failing which it may pass appropriate orders against the defaulting party.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal.