Delhi High Court Rejects Reddy Pharmaceuticals' Review Plea In 'REDDY' Trademark Dispute With DRL

The Delhi High Court on 14 August dismissed a review petition filed by Reddy Pharmaceuticals Ltd., refusing to revisit its earlier judgment upholding a permanent injunction restraining the company from using the mark “REDDY” and directing removal of its registered trademark from the Register of Trade Marks.

A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that none of the errors alleged by Reddy Pharmaceuticals (RPL) constituted an “error apparent on the face of the record”, the limited ground on which a review may be sought.

The dispute arose from a 2003 suit filed by Dr. Reddy's Laboratories (DRL) against Reddy Pharmaceuticals over the use of “REDDY” in the pharmaceutical trade. DRL sought an injunction against passing off, besides reliefs for copyright infringement, rendition of accounts and damages.

A Single Judge decreed the suit in DRL's favour in 2013 and granted a permanent injunction against RPL. RPL challenged the judgment before the Division Bench.

During the pendency of the appeal, DRL also succeeded in rectification proceedings before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), which ordered removal of RPL's registered “REDDY” mark from the Register.

RPL challenged the IPAB's order in a writ petition. The Division Bench heard the writ petition along with the appeal and dismissed both in a common judgment dated 18 May 2026.

In the review proceedings, the Bench clarified that it had not treated the IPAB's order as evidence of goodwill in the passing off action. It said the IPAB's findings were examined independently in the writ petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1958, which empowers the removal of a registered mark from the Register in specified circumstances. It held:

“The reference to the IPAB proceedings in the judgment, therefore, cannot be construed as treating the IPAB's order as the only evidence of goodwill in the passing off action. The review petitioner may disagree with the manner in which the two proceedings have been dealt with, but such disagreement does not disclose an error apparent on the face of the record.”

On goodwill, the judges held that it had not treated the Agency Agreement between the parties as the source of RPL's goodwill, but only as corroborative material. They clarified:

“The Agency Agreement thereafter was considered not as the source of RPL's goodwill, but as a material corroborating the admission of DRL's own witness and demonstrating DRL's knowledge of RPL's area / line of business and market presence.”

The Court also rejected RPL's challenge concerning the invocation of Sections 9 and 11 of the Trade Marks Act, holding that the provisions formed part of the statutory scheme under Section 57 concerning the wrongful retention of a mark on the Register.

It further held that the IPAB's findings on confusion, false trade connection, dishonest adoption and absence of bona fide proprietorship independently justified removal of the mark, irrespective of any error in the IPAB's reliance on the Companies Act. It observed:

“The IPAB's findings regarding confusion, false trade connection, dishonest adoption and absence of bona fide proprietorship independently justified removal of the mark from the Register.”

The Bench held that RPL was, in substance, seeking reconsideration of findings already returned rather than identifying any error apparent on the record. It concluded:

“We, therefore, are of the opinion that no case for review of our judgment dated 18.05.2026 is made out.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the review petition along with the accompanying application seeking condonation of a 13-day delay in re-filing.