Sun Pharma’s RACIRAFT Vs JB Pharma’s RANRAFT

In a significant legal victory for Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., the Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction restraining JB Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. from using the trademark “RANRAFT” for its antacid product. The court observed that “RANRAFT” was deceptively similar to Sun Pharma’s registered trademark “RACIRAFT,” potentially causing consumer confusion and harming Sun Pharma’s established goodwill and reputation.

Background of the Trademark Dispute

The dispute began when Sun Pharma, the proprietor of the trademark “RACIRAFT,” alleged that JB Chemicals’ use of the mark “RANRAFT” infringed upon its intellectual property rights. Both products contain similar active ingredients, namely alginic acid, calcium carbonate, and sodium bicarbonate, used for treating acid reflux and other gastrointestinal issues.

Sun Pharma launched its product under the trademark “RACIRAFT” in January 2022 after successfully registering the mark. Subsequently, JB Chemicals applied for the trademark “RANRAFT” in June 2022. However, the Trademark Registry objected to JB Chemicals’ application due to similarities with a third-party mark, “RINIRAFT.” Sun Pharma swiftly contested JB Chemicals’ adoption of “RANRAFT,” citing its potential to confuse consumers and dilute Sun Pharma’s established mark.

Sun Pharma’s Arguments

Sun Pharmaceutical emphasized that “RANRAFT” bore a striking resemblance to its registered mark “RACIRAFT.” The company argued that such similarity was likely to mislead consumers, especially in the pharmaceutical sector, where even minor confusion could have severe consequences for public health.

Further, Sun Pharma highlighted its substantial investment in marketing and establishing RACIRAFT’s reputation, claiming that JB Chemicals’ use of RANRAFT could cause irreparable damage to its goodwill.

JB Chemicals’ Defense

In response, JB Chemicals argued that the term “RAFT” is generic in the pharmaceutical industry, particularly for antacid products. The term relates to the raft-forming nature of these medications in the stomach, which helps reduce acid reflux. JB Chemicals cited the existence of other products, including DIGERAFT, GAVIRAFT, ARORAFT, and ULGERAFT, to support its claim that “RAFT” is a commonly used suffix.

The company also contended that its adoption of the mark “RANRAFT” was independent and not intended to exploit Sun Pharma’s trademark. JB Chemicals maintained that no significant risk of confusion existed between the two marks.

connect with us for Trademark Registration

Delhi High Court’s Observations

Presiding over the case, Justice Saurabh Banerjee evaluated the arguments presented by both parties. The court acknowledged that while the term “RAFT” is commonly associated with antacid medications, the overall similarity between the marks “RACIRAFT” and “RANRAFT” could not be ignored.

The court emphasized the importance of safeguarding public interest in the pharmaceutical industry, where consumer confusion can have dangerous consequences. Justice Banerjee observed that an average consumer with “average intelligence and imperfect recollection” may fail to distinguish between the two products due to their similar names.

The court further noted that the existence of other “RAFT”-based trademarks did not weaken Sun Pharma’s claim. As the registered owner of the trademark “RACIRAFT,” Sun Pharma has the exclusive right to challenge any infringing marks. Justice Banerjee also underscored that while other products use the suffix “RAFT,” none of them share the same degree of similarity with Sun Pharma’s RACIRAFT as JB Chemicals’ RANRAFT.

Key Excerpts from the Court’s Judgement

Justice Saurabh Banerjee held that Sun Pharma had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and irreparable harm. The court’s observations included the following key points:

“An average common man who is of average intelligence with imperfect recollection can hardly be expected to decipher the miniscule difference between ‘CI’ of the plaintiff being replaced with ‘N’ of the defendants.”

The court further noted:

“…the plaintiff has indeed been able to make out a prima facie case, both factually and legally, in its favour since the impugned mark RANRAFT is deceptively similar to that of the registered trademark RACIRAFT of the plaintiff. Under the existing circumstances, if the impugned mark RANRAFT is allowed to continue it shall result in immense irreparable harm, loss and injury to the plaintiff since it is the prior adopter, and registered proprietor of the trademark RACIRAFT. Same is the reason for the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.”

Interim Injunction Granted

Given the circumstances, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Sun Pharma and granted an interim injunction against JB Chemicals. The court restrained JB Chemicals, along with its directors, agents, distributors, dealers, and retailers, from manufacturing, selling, advertising, or distributing any products under the mark “RANRAFT” or any other deceptively similar mark. This injunction will remain in effect until the final resolution of the case.

Further Court Stated:

” Accordingly, for the afore-noted reasoning and analysis, the defendants (JB Chemical), their directors, their assignees in business, licensees, franchisee, distributors, dealers, stockists, retailers, chemists, servants and agents are restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in medicinal & pharmaceutical preparations under the impugned mark RANRAFT or any other trade mark as may be deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered trade mark RACIRAFT, amounting to infringement of the plaintiff’s registration under no.5288739 dated 17.01.2022, in any manner whatso ever, till the pendency of the present suit.”

Significance of the Judgment

This ruling underscores the Delhi High Court’s commitment to protecting trademark rights in the pharmaceutical industry. It highlights the critical role of trademarks in preventing consumer confusion, especially for medicinal products where incorrect usage could jeopardize health and safety.

The case also sets a precedent for similar disputes involving generic components in trademarks. While common terms like “RAFT” may be used descriptively, their inclusion in trademarks does not justify the adoption of deceptively similar names that infringe upon established marks.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s interim injunction in favor of Sun Pharmaceutical reinforces the importance of safeguarding intellectual property rights and public interest in the pharmaceutical sector. By restraining JB Chemicals from using the mark “RANRAFT,” the court has sent a clear message regarding the protection of registered trademarks and the prevention of consumer confusion.

The matter now awaits final adjudication, but for the time being, Sun Pharma’s RACIRAFT remains protected against any potential trademark infringement by JB Chemicals’ RANRAFT.

Read Further: Why Choosing the Right Trademark Name is Essential , Trademark Cases in india

trademark infringement in indiaChoosing the Right Name for Trademark Registration in India: A Comprehensive Guide