Synopsis

The plaintiff, manufacturer of analgesic and antispasmodic preparations under the registered trademark 'MEFTAL-SPAS' and the copyright-protected artistic work on its packaging, discovered that the defendants were marketing a similar product under the mark 'MEFIAL-SPAS' with an identical colour scheme, packaging, and artistic work. The defendants had merely replaced the fourth letter 'T' with 'I' in the plaintiff's mark. The suit proceeded ex-parte as the defendants failed to contest despite service. The High Court decreed the suit, holding that: (i) the impugned mark was visually, phonetically, and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered marks; (ii) the defendants had copied the plaintiff's copyright-protected artistic work; (iii) the defendants' conduct was dishonest and mala fide; (iv) the plaintiff was entitled to permanent injunction; (v) costs of Rs. 5,00,000 were awarded under Section 35 of the CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of judicature at bombay ordinary original civil jurisdiction in its commercial division

Commercial ip suit no. 520 of 2016

Blue cross laboratories private limited (plaintiff) vs. Alto healthcare private limited & anr. (defendants)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice arif doctor

Core Law: Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Sections 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 – Infringement of registered trademark – Passing off – Copyright Act, 1957 – Section 51 – Infringement of copyright – Deceptive similarity – Phonetic and visual resemblance – Pharmaceutical products – Costs under Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, Commercial Division
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arif Doctor (Single Judge)
Date of Judgment: June 17, 2026 (Reserved on May 8, 2026)
Case No.: Commercial IP Suit No. 520 of 2016
Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:13429

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Sections 27 (no action for infringement of unregistered trademark), 28 (rights conferred by registration), 29 (infringement of registered trademark), 30 (limits on effect of registered trademark), 31 (registration to be prima facie evidence of validity)

• Copyright Act, 1957 – Section 51 (when copyright infringed)

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 35 (costs), as amended by Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015

• Letters Patent, 1865 – Clause XIV (leave to sue in the High Court)

Subject matter of the judgment:

Whether the defendants' use of the mark 'MEFIAL-SPAS' and the identical artistic work/packaging for pharmaceutical products constitutes infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademark 'MEFTAL-SPAS' and copyright, and whether the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction, damages, and costs under the Commercial Courts Act.

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.