Madras High Court Protects '777 Oil' Trademark, Sets Aside Order Dismissing Infringement Suit

The Madras High Court on Friday protected the trademark “777 Oil” used for a Siddha medicinal oil to treat psoriasis, setting aside a single judge's decision that had dismissed an infringement suit filed by J.R.K's Research and Pharmaceuticals against Sanjeevi Pharma.

In a judgment pronounced on March 6, 2026, Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice K. Kumaresh Babu allowed the company's appeal, holding that the earlier judgment suffered from “perversity,” and decreed the suit with a permanent injunction restraining Sanjeevi Pharma from using the mark “777 Oil” or any deceptively similar mark.

The dispute arose after Sanjeevi Pharma began marketing its product under the mark “SANJEEVI 777 OIL.” J.R.K's Research contended that its promoter, Dr. J.R. Krishnamoorthy, had been using the mark “777 Oil” since 1992 in connection with a formulation developed in association with the National Research Development Corporation (NRDC).

The company argued that the rival firm's adoption of the same alphanumeric expression was not bona fide and caused damage to its reputation.

The company further pointed out that the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) had already ordered the removal of Sanjeevi Pharma's mark from the trademark register in 2011, and that the order had attained finality after the dismissal of a writ petition filed by the rival firm.

Sanjeevi Pharma, however, argued that the numerical expression “777” referred to its manufacturing process involving three seven-day stages and that the expression had become publici juris. The firm also contended that J.R.K's Research had begun promoting a modified mark, “Dr. JRK's 777 OIL.”

The High Court noted that both “777 Oil” and the modified mark “Dr. JRK's 777 Oil” remain valid and subsisting trademark registrations in favour of JRK. The bench further observed that since the Sanjeevani's mark had already been ordered to be removed from the register by the IPAB and that order had attained finality, the respondent could not lawfully continue using the mark.

The court also found fault in the single judge order for relying on an email communication to infer that J.R.K's Research intended to abandon its original mark. Holding that such reliance was “not sustainable,” the Bench said the electronic record had not been proved in accordance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, as the mandatory certificate required for admissibility of electronic evidence was not produced.

Allowing the appeal, the High Court set aside the earlier judgment and decreed the suit in favour of J.R.K. Research. It also directed Sanjeevi Pharma to surrender all goods, cartons, and promotional materials bearing the offending trademark for destruction and issued a preliminary decree directing the company to render accounts of profits earned from the sale of the offending products for the purpose of assessing damages.