In a significant judgment delivered on May 18 2026, the Division Bench (two judges) of the Delhi High Court brought down the curtain on the dispute between Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) and Reddy Pharmaceuticals Limited (RPL). It concerned the use of the family name Reddy for pharmaceutical products and had been fiercely contested over the past two decades.
The court dismissed both the appeal filed by RPL against the decree dated September 13 2013, by which the single judge restrained it from using the mark ‘Reddy’, and its challenge to the order dated October 29 2013 passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), which directed cancellation of the mark ‘Reddy’ in Class 5 of the Nice Classification. The court found that the registration had erroneously remained on the trademarks register and caused confusion and suggested a trade connection with the company name Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories on account of the long-standing use of the mark ‘Dr. Reddy’s’ in the pharmaceutical industry.
The crucial aspect of the judgment is the rejection of RPL’s defence to its use of ‘Reddy’ under Section 35 of the Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999, which protects bona fide use of a person’s own name.
Background to the dispute
The background to the case can be summarised as follows:
RPL was initially engaged in supplying active pharmaceutical ingredients and had been purchasing bulk drugs from DRL since 1997 for distribution;
The dispute intensified when RPL entered the formulations business in 2003 and began prominently using the mark ‘Reddy’ on its product packaging;
DRL complained that RPL’s adoption of similar packaging for its OMRE product, use of the mark ‘Mucolite’, and reference to Ameerpet, Hyderabad (in the same locality where DRL’s registered office is situated) were in bad faith; and
DRL had applied for the registration of its mark in 2001, whereas RPL filed an application for registration of the mark ‘Reddy’ in 2003.
The single judge ruled in favour of DRL, granting a permanent injunction restraining RPL from using the ‘Reddy’ trademark/name/domain name for pharmaceutical products. The court also held that RPL’s OMRE packaging infringed copyright subsisting in DRL’s OMEZ strip packaging. RPL filed an appeal before the Division Bench.
Arguments before the Division Bench
RPL made the following arguments:
Its use of ‘Reddy’ was honest and protected under the ‘own name’ defence, as the mark was taken from the surname of its managing director;
DRL had acquiesced in the use of “Reddy Pharmaceuticals Limited”, having known of RPL’s existence since 1997, and that no real likelihood of confusion arose because medicines are identified by product brands rather than corporate names; and
RPL also disputed DRL’s claim to prior use, submitting that DRL had not established exclusive trademark significance in ‘Dr. Reddy’s’ at the relevant time.
DRL made the following arguments:
It had adopted and used ‘Dr. Reddy’s’ earlier, built substantial goodwill through continuous use, and proved that reputation by advertisements, invoices, and publications dating back to 1997;
RPL was fully aware of DRL’s business because of their prior commercial relationship, yet adopted Reddy for overlapping pharmaceutical goods in a manner calculated to misrepresent a trade connection;
DRL maintained that ‘Dr. Reddy’s’ had become distinctive of its business, that the rival marks were deceptively similar, and that RPL’s use of Reddy in its packaging, corporate name, and domain name was dishonest;
It also relied on RPL’s adoption of marks such as ‘OMRE’ and ‘Recolite’, the Ameerpet address reference, and RPL’s 2003 application to register ‘Reddy’ in Class 5 to show bad faith, arguing that a party claiming Section 35 protection could not simultaneously seek statutory exclusivity over the same mark; and
Finally, DRL denied any acquiescence, submitting that the actionable misrepresentation arose only when RPL entered the formulations market and began using Reddy in a competing field.
The court’s observations
The Division Bench affirmed the single judge and the IPAB, holding that RPL’s use of Reddy was not bona fide and that DRL had established prior goodwill, deceptive similarity, and a clear likelihood of confusion.
The bench held that DRL’s corporate name had, through sustained commercial use, acquired trademark significance and was no longer merely a corporate identifier;
It rejected the plea of delay and acquiescence, holding that the relevant inquiry began not with RPL’s adoption of its corporate name in 1996 but with its later use of Reddy for competing pharmaceutical products;
The court held that DRL’s acknowledgment of RPL’s corporate name in earlier commercial dealings concerning a non-competing segment could not amount to consent for RPL’s later use of Reddy in a competing business;
RPL’s newspaper announcements of its entry into the formulations business did not establish consent, waiver, or acquiescence by DRL;
The bench found that no passing off arose from RPL’s earlier use of its corporate name for bulk pharmaceutical ingredients; the cause of action crystallised only when RPL entered the finished formulations market and began using Reddy in a manner likely to suggest an association with DRL;
DRL was held to have acted without delay once RPL’s competing and objectionable use came to light;
The court rejected RPL’s submission that differences in the parties’ full corporate names, or the practice of prescribing medicines by product brands, eliminated confusion;
The bench held that Reddy was deceptively similar to Dr. Reddy’s, with “Reddy” being the dominant and memorable element in both marks; given the parties’ common field of trade, confusion was likely;
It found that RPL had failed to offer any credible explanation for adopting a name so close to that of an established pharmaceutical company, which undermined its claim of bona fide use;
The likelihood of confusion was held to be even more serious because the marks related to medicinal products, where the law tolerates no avoidable risk of confusion in light of public health concerns;
The court also noted that RPL had full knowledge of DRL’s goodwill by reason of the parties’ prior business relationship, and that DRL’s evidence of use and reputation had gone substantially unchallenged; and
Taken together, RPL’s prior dealings with DRL, its knowledge of DRL’s reputation, the use of the Ameerpet address, and its prompt filing for registration of ‘Reddy’ after the parties’ relationship ended led the court to conclude that the adoption was not honest and that Section 35 offered no protection.
The ruling reaffirms that the ‘own name’ defence is not absolute and cannot be invoked to justify the adoption of a name that has already acquired substantial goodwill and distinctiveness in the market. The adoption and use of a mark or trade name for commercial purposes must be honest, bona fide, and consistent with principles of fair competition.
