The Supreme Court on Monday declined to interfere with a Delhi High Court judgment refusing interim relief to Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited in its trademark dispute with Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited over the branding of rival cancer drugs. The Court, however, directed that certain adverse observations made by the High Court against Sun Pharma be expunged.

Senior AdvocateMukul Rohatgi, appearing for Sun Pharma, argued that the similarity between the competing marks for cancer medication posed a serious public health concern. He submitted that confusingly similar names for Schedule H prescription drugs could result in dispensing errors, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd, (2001) 5 SCC 73. Mr Rohatgi contended that despite safeguards, mistakes could occur because doctors’ prescriptions are often illegible and confusion at the pharmacy level cannot be ruled out.

Senior Advocate Dr AM Singhvi appearing for Intas countered that Sun Pharma had abandoned its passing-off claim before the High Court and that there was no evidence of actual or likely confusion between the competing marks. It was argued that the drugs are administered through a controlled process involving multiple levels of verification and, in Sun Pharma’s case, through a cold-chain supply system directly to hospitals, making the possibility of confusion too remote.

The respondent further pointed out that the Single Judge, the Division Bench, and the Supreme Court at an earlier stage had all found no deceptive similarity between the rival marks.

Agreeing with the High Court’s prima facie assessment, the Supreme Court observed that the likelihood of confusion appeared “too remote” and found no ground to interfere with the Division Bench’s order refusing interim injunction.

At the same time, the Bench disapproved of certain observations made by the High Court questioning Sun Pharma’s motives in pursuing the litigation. While declining to interfere with the operative order, it directed that the adverse findings contained in paragraphs 155A, 158 and 159 of the impugned judgment be set aside.