Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction To GSK Against Zee Laboratories In 'PHEXIN'-'FEXIT' Trademark Dispute

Calling it “a case of triple identity,” the Delhi High Court has restrained Zee Laboratories from using the marks 'FEXIT', 'FEXIT-B' and 'FEXIT-M', holding them deceptively similar to GlaxoSmithKline's registered antibiotic brand 'PHEXIN'.

Justice Tejas Karia passed the order on February 28, 2026, on an interim application by GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. seeking restraint against infringement of its mark 'PHEXIN', passing off, unfair competition and dilution.

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) contended that the defendant was using the marks 'FEXIT', 'FEXIT-B', and 'FEXIT-M' for pharmaceutical ointments, which were phonetically and visually deceptively similar to its antibiotic brand 'PHEXIN', in use in India since 1985. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant had adopted a green-and-white trade dress deceptively similar to its own.

In response, Zee Laboratories argued that the marks were neither identical nor deceptively similar. It submitted that its products are antibiotic creams and ointments meant for dermatological conditions, whereas the plaintiff's product is an oral antibiotic capsule.

The defendant also contended that both products are Schedule H drugs and cannot be dispensed without a prescription, and therefore there was no likelihood of confusion.

Rejecting the defendant's arguments, Justice Karia said that even a prima facie comparison of the rival marks shows clear phonetic similarity. He noted that both parties operate in the same category of pharmaceutical products and cater to a similar consumer base.

The Court reiterated that in trademark law, a likelihood of confusion is sufficient to establish infringement and that actual instances of confusion do not have to be proved. It further emphasised that courts must adopt a stricter standard in cases involving medicines, as any confusion between pharmaceutical products can be life-threatening and may have serious consequences for public health, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Cadilla Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadilla Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

The Court also noted that the plaintiff's mark has attained a distinctive character through extensive, continuous and prolonged usage, and that the impugned marks are deceptively similar to it. In addition, the Court observed that the defendant had adopted a trade dress similar in colour combination and placement of features to that of the plaintiff.

Justice Karia held that the defendant had failed to provide a plausible justification for adopting the impugned marks and that their use was prima facie dishonest. The Court further found that the plaintiff had established goodwill and reputation in the mark 'PHEXIN'.

Concluding that a strong prima facie case had been made out, the Court held that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the plaintiff and that grave prejudice was likely to be caused if interim protection was not granted.

Calling it “a case of triple identity,” the Court observed: “This is a case of triple identity where the Plaintiff's Mark and the Impugned Marks are deceptively similar, the product category is identical and the trade channel as also the consumer base is identical. The identity in the Impugned Marks is so close to the Plaintiff's Mark that they are indistinguishable"

Accordingly, the Court restrained Zee Laboratories and its associates from manufacturing, selling, advertising or dealing in pharmaceutical products under the marks 'FEXIT', 'FEXIT-B' and 'FEXIT-M', or any other mark or trade dress deceptively similar to 'PHEXIN', until the final disposal of the suit.