New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has restrained Finecure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, or dealing in pharmaceutical products under the marks “PANTOPACID,” “PANTOPACID D,” “PANTOPACID SR,” or any other mark deceptively similar to Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd.'s registered “PANTOCID” trademark, while allowing the company four months to clear its existing stock under specified conditions.
A Division Bench comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora passed the order on July 1, 2026, while allowing Sun Pharma’s appeal against an earlier judge's order that had refused a temporary court order restraining Finecure from using the mark.
Despite granting relief to Sun Pharma, the Delhi High Court allowed Finecure Pharmaceuticals a limited four-month period to sell its existing stock bearing the Pantopacid marks, subject to the conditions imposed by the court.
According to the court order, Finecure must file an affidavit detailing its existing inventory, including particulars such as batch numbers. Subject to filing the affidavit, the company may sell the existing stock to retailers within the permitted period.
However, the restriction on fresh production takes effect from the date of the order. The court made clear that Finecure cannot undertake any further manufacturing or packaging of drugs under the disputed "PANTOPACID" mark or related versions of the mark.
The court granted the limited window while balancing the interim restraint with Finecure’s existing stock position and the fact that no injunction had operated against the company before the present order.
Sun Pharma Laboratories claimed that it had used the “PANTOCID” mark since 1999 and placed invoices on record to support its claim of prior use.
The trademark covers pantoprazole-based pharmaceutical products used for acid-related conditions.
Pantocid and Pantopacid are brand names for medicines containing pantoprazole, a proton pump inhibitor commonly prescribed for conditions such as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), peptic ulcers, and other acid-related disorders.
According to the case record, Finecure Pharmaceuticals claimed adoption of the “PANTOPACID” mark in December 2007 and filed a trademark application in April 2009. Sun Pharma opposed the application.
Sun Pharma approached the court after discovering in April 2023 that Finecure’s product was being sold in Delhi and through e-commerce platforms. The company sought a permanent injunction and also applied for interim protection.
The earlier judge found that "PANTOPACID" was similar in spelling, pronunciation, and overall appearance to "PANTOCID" and infringed Sun Pharma's trademark. However, the judge declined to grant an interim injunction.
The Division Bench has now set aside that refusal.
A central issue before the appellate court concerned the treatment of Sun Pharma’s registered trademark at the interim stage.
The Bench held that the earlier judge had failed to properly consider the legal presumption that Sun Pharma's registered trademark was valid at the initial stage of the case unless successfully challenged under Section 31(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Since Sun Pharma's "PANTOCID" is a registered trademark, the law presumes it to be valid unless that registration is successfully challenged.
The Bench also examined an earlier registration of the "PANTOCID" trademark associated with Takeda. It observed that this registration had been removed from the trademark register in 2019, meaning it could no longer be relied upon to question Sun Pharma's registration at this stage.
The court therefore concluded that the presumption of prima facie validity attached to Sun Pharma’s registration could not have been disregarded at this stage of the proceedings on that basis.
The Bench also noted that Finecure had not challenged the earlier judge's finding of infringement through a separate legal challenge, and therefore upheld that finding.
The Division Bench also examined the relative sales figures placed on record.
According to the court order, Finecure recorded annual sales of approximately ₹28.64 lakh for Pantopacid during 2022-23, while Sun Pharma recorded annual sales of approximately ₹514 crore for Pantocid during 2021-22.
Based on these figures, the Division Bench disagreed with the earlier conclusion that Finecure had grown into a “formidable market player” between 2010 and 2023, finding that such a conclusion was not supported by the record.
The sales comparison formed part of the court’s assessment while considering the the interests of both companies at this stage.
The High Court did not decide every disputed issue in Sun Pharma’s favour at the interim stage.
The Division Bench noted that Finecure had raised a genuine dispute regarding the authenticity of certain invoices relied upon by Sun Pharma for the period from 1999 to 2005, as well as a Chartered Accountant certificate for 2012-13.
The court left these questions left these questions to be decided during the trial and made clear that Sun Pharma would have to establish the genuineness of the documents it relied upon.
The Bench also referred to pending proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which deals with allegations of giving false evidence or using fabricated documents in court.
The Division Bench further considered the issue of delay.
It held that delay would not prevent the court from granting temporary relief, particularly in view of the finding of infringement and the public interest involved in the pharmaceutical trade.
However, the Division Bench indicated that Sun Pharma would not be entitled to claim damages for the period before 2023, while holding that delay did not by itself defeat interim injunctive relief.
The Division Bench also expressed concern over the progress of the main trademark lawsuit.
The court noted that although the suit was filed in 2023 and pleadings were completed in the same year, the trial judge had still not formally identified the issues to be decided during the trial even after almost three years.
It directed both parties to assist the Single Judge in framing issues at the next hearing scheduled for August 25, 2026. The court indicated that appropriate orders could be passed against a defaulting party if the parties failed to cooperate.
The interim order will remain significant while the underlying trademark suit continues, with the court allowing Finecure limited time to clear its existing stock to clear existing inventory but stopping fresh manufacture and packaging under the disputed Pantopacid marks.
Pharmaceutical trademark disputes carry broader public health implications because look alike or sound alike medicine names can contribute to medication errors. Courts have consistently recognized that a higher degree of care is required in cases involving medicinal products, as confusion between drug names may pose risks for patients, pharmacists, and healthcare providers.
Reference:
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v. Finecure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Ors., FAO(OS) (COMM) 200/2023 (Delhi High Court, July 1, 2026).
Pantoprazole. National Center for Biotechnology Information. Pantoprazole. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing; updated 2025. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK499945/
Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001) 5 SCC 73, Supreme Court of India.
World Health Organization. Reporting and Learning Systems for Medication Errors: The Role of Pharmacovigilance Centres. Geneva: WHO, 2014.
(Rh/ARC/MSM)