Delhi High Court Trademark Verdict on Modi-Mundipharma vs FEMICONTIN

The Delhi High Court recently gave a verdict in a trademark dispute between Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd. and a few rival pharma companies. The case raised a key question: Can a company get exclusive rights over commonly used terms like “FE” and “CONTIN” in drug names?

The Court partly allowed Modi-Mundipharma’s appeal, ruling that while it cannot claim exclusivity over “CONTIN,” the rival mark “FEMICONTIN” did infringe its trademark “FECONTIN-F” and copied it in a way that could mislead customers.

Background of the Dispute

Modi-Mundipharma owns several trademarks with the “CONTIN” suffix—such as “FECONTIN-F,” “ALPROCONTIN,” and “BUCOCONTIN”—which it says have helped build its brand reputation. The company claimed that “FEMICONTIN,” used by Specialty Meditech Pvt. Ltd. and Preet International Pvt. Ltd., looked and sounded too similar. They argued that this confused customers and damaged their brand’s identity. Modi-Mundipharma asked the court to stop others from using “FEMICONTIN” and similar names, citing trademark infringement and passing off.

The defendants, however, said “FEMICONTIN” was created independently. They explained “FE” stands for iron, “FEMI” targets women (especially pregnant women), and “CONTIN” means continuous release of the medicine. The trademark “FEMICONTIN” thus indicates a drug that releases iron in a sustained manner into the body of a pregnant woman. They argued that such generic or descriptive terms cannot be monopolized.

What the Single Judge Decided Earlier

In March 2023, a Single Judge ruled mostly against Modi-Mundipharma. The judge said Modi-Mundipharma had not shown any independent use of “CONTIN” alone as a brand name. In fact, the company’s own witness admitted, “We do not manufacture any product under the brand name CONTIN; however, most of our products bear CONTIN as a suffix in all our trademarks.” The judge also held that “CONTIN” is descriptive of continuous drug release, and that “FECONTIN-F” itself was not distinctive enough to get strong protection. So, no infringement was found, and the suit was dismissed.

What the Division Bench Ruled

This decision, delivered on July 1, 2025, by Justices C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul, partly reversed the earlier ruling. The Division Bench agreed that “FECONTIN-F” wasn’t distinctive by itself. But it found that “FEMICONTIN” looked and sounded too close to “FECONTIN-F,” which could confuse customers and violate trademark rights.

It provided a detailed analysis of how trademark principles apply in the pharma industry.

Court’s Final Orders

The court permanently barred the defendants from using “FEMICONTIN” or any mark that looks or sounds confusingly similar to Modi-Mundipharma’s trademarks in pharmaceutical products.

It did not order a recall of already sold products, but directed the defendants to destroy remaining stock and submit proof in court.

However, Modi-Mundipharma’s broader claim—that it should have exclusive rights over “CONTIN” as a suffix in all drug names—was rejected. The court said it could still file suits if any future mark closely resembles one of its registered trademarks.

The defendants’ cross-appeal was also dismissed, and no ruling on damages was made as that issue was not fully argued.

What This Means

This ruling highlights how courts balance trademark rights and fair use. Common descriptive words like “FE” and “CONTIN” can’t be owned exclusively. But when a product name like “FECONTIN-F” is well-known, similar-sounding names like “FEMICONTIN” can’t be used if they confuse customers.

It’s a reminder for pharma companies to carefully choose brand names and avoid confusing overlaps.

Case Summary

In summary, the Delhi High Court has limited Modi-Mundipharma’s monopoly claims but protected its brand against confusingly similar rival products. The decision protects both brand identity and consumer clarity.

(Rh/Pooja Bansal/MSM/SE)