Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh of the Bombay High Court has delivered a decisive ruling in favor of Laboratories Griffon Pvt. Ltd., restraining the use and sale of the diabetes drug ELGIMET. The court found that the mark “ELGIMET” was deceptively similar to the registered trademark “GLIMET,” used by Griffon for its anti-diabetic products since the early 1990s.

 In her judgment, Justice Deshmukh emphasized that both marks were phonetically and structurally alike, making it likely that an average consumer with simple recall  could easily confuse the two.

Facts:

The issue started when Griffon found ELGIMET products being sold online in June 2024 and decided to seek legal protection. The court granted an ad-interim injunction in September 2024, and it has now been confirmed. Adwin Pharma, which makes ELGIMET, argued that the two marks were neither visually nor phonetically similar, that their price difference would stop buyers from getting confused, and that “GLIMET” could not be monopolized because it comes from the names of pharmaceutical ingredients. The company also said it adopted the name “ELGIMET” honestly, as it was connected to its own name, Elcliff.

Court Reasoning & Ruling:

However, the court rejected these arguments, citing the landmark case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., and stressed that confusion in pharmaceutical goods demands stricter scrutiny. It added  that prescription-only sales do not fully remove the chance of confusion.

 Justice Deshmukh observed, “The Plaintiffs being in the pharmaceutical industry since the year 1992, the Defendant No 2 ought to have been aware of the Plaintiff's registered trade mark being in existence and avoided adoption of deceptively similar trade mark. The mere existence of slightest probability of confusion in the case of medicinal products require that the use of the product be restrained.”

The court further highlighted  that Griffon’s trademarks were registered in Part A of the old Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, which showed that they were distinctive. It rejected the argument that “GLIMET” simply described the drug’s ingredients, stating that although no one can claim exclusive rights over the names of individual ingredients, they can claim exclusivity over the coined term “GLIMET.”

Adwin Pharma could not show any proof of significant investment, actual sales, or earlier use of the disputed mark. Regarding the passing-off claim, the court held that although Griffon had shown goodwill and reputation, it had not shown a basic case of misrepresentation. Therefore, the court refused to grant interim relief for passing off.

Ultimately, the ad-interim injunction was confirmed, restraining Adwin Pharma and associated entities from using “ELGIMET” or any mark identical or deceptively similar to “GLIMET” or “GLIMET DS.”

Appearance 

Advocate For Plaintiff: Adv. Rashmin Khandekar, Adv. Archita Gharat, Adv. Kiran Mehta instructed by Adv.  Kiran J Mehta

Advocate for Defendant: Advocate Bhavi Gada instructed by Advocates Pooja Jain for Defendant Nos. 1, 1A and 1B (through VC); Advocates Rajiv Gupta instructed by  Advocates Nisha Kaba, Abhijit Singh, Shivani Upadhyay for Defendant No. 2

Case Details :  Laboratories Griffon Pvt. Ltd. and Anr v. Adwin Pharma and Anr. (IA (L)- 27480/2024 IN COMMERCIAL SUIT IP SUIT NO.225/2024