Madras High Court Upholds Registration Of 'NICE' Mark Despite Dr Reddy's 'NISE' Trademark Objection

Justice A.D. Maria Clete, in a judgment pronounced on October 26, held that although the rival marks are phonetically similar, the differences between the products and their purchasers substantially reduce the likelihood of confusion.

Dr. Reddy's had adopted the “NISE” mark in 1995 for pharmaceutical products, including pain-relieving medicines. It argued that the competing “NICE” mark, registered by Chennai-based Nice Neotech Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd. for medical equipment, differed by only one letter and could mislead consumers or create an impression of commercial association.

The pharmaceutical company also contended that the two businesses operated in allied healthcare sectors and that the Registrar of Trade Marks had failed to properly assess the similarity between the marks, their potential for confusion and the evidence supporting Nice Neotech's claim of prior use.

Nice Neotech maintained that it had independently adopted “NICE” for its neonatal equipment business, explaining the name as an abbreviation of “Neonatal Intensive Care Equipment”. It argued that its products—including incubators, radiant warmers, phototherapy units and ventilators—were fundamentally different from medicines sold under the NISE brand.

The dispute arose after the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks rejected Dr. Reddy's opposition in August 2025 and accepted Nice Neotech's application for the device mark in Class 10, covering medical equipment and apparatus. Dr. Reddy's challenged that decision before the High Court.

The Court acknowledged the resemblance between the marks, observing that “NISE” and “nice” comprise four letters, with the only difference being the substitution of “S” with “C”. It held that the device representation of NICE did not eliminate the phonetic similarity.

However, the Court said phonetic resemblance alone could not determine whether registration should be refused.

“Their common connection with healthcare does not, by itself, establish a sufficient commercial relationship to give rise to confusion,” the Court observed.

It noted that NISE medicines were generally sold through pharmacies, while Nice Neotech's specialised equipment was purchased by hospitals and medical institutions through doctors, biomedical engineers and procurement personnel.

Such buyers, the Court remarked, assess technical specifications, safety, suitability, performance and price, and therefore exercise a higher degree of care.

The Court also found that Dr. Reddy's had not sufficiently established that consumers would associate Nice Neotech's equipment with its pharmaceutical business.

While recognising the reputation of NISE in relation to medicines, it held that the company had not established the additional requirements for protection of a well-known trademark across different goods, dishonest adoption or passing off.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court confirmed the Registrar's decision to allow registration of NICE.

For Dr. Reddy's: Advocate G.Ramesh

For Respondents: CGSC Gangadaran for R1; Advocate V.Aswini Anjana for R2