Arctic
Invent
Case Registry
Dashboard
Case Explorer
Back to Explorer
Update Case Entry
Manually curate individual case documents inside the PostgreSQL engine.
Case Lawsuit Title
*
Case / Trial ID Number
Jurisdiction Code
*
us
in
upc
eu
Category
*
Patent
Trademark
Copyright
Design
Filing Date
Decision Verdict Date
Court / Tribunal
Bench / Panel Judges
Petitioner / Claimant (Plaintiff)
Smithkline Beecham Limited
Respondent / Defendant
Ghk Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
Dispute Summary
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Smithkline Beecham Limited against Ghk Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, restraining the defendant from using the trademark 'GHK' which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark 'GSK'. The court also directed the defendant to take down all references to the impugned marks or name from its website, social media, and third-party platforms. The plaintiff, a prominent pharmaceutical company, had filed a suit against the defendant for trademark infringement.
Outcome / Ruling
plaintiff_favorable
Verdict Document PDF URL
Full text judgment
[Cites 7 , Cited by 0 ] Delhi High Court - Orders Smithkline Beecham Limited vs Ghk Pharmaceuticals Private Limited on 28 April, 2026 Author: Tushar Rao Gedela Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela $~37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 453/2026 SMITHKLINE BEECHAM LIMITED .....Plaintiff Through: Ms. Tanya Varma, Mr. Vardaan Anand, Ms. Ruchika Yadav and Ms. Hansika Bajaj, Advocaes. versus GHK PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Defendant Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA ORDER % 28.04.2026 I.A. 11826/2026 (Additional Documents) 1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XI Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 (hereinafter referred to as' CPC ') as applicable to commercial suits under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ' CC Act ') seeking leave to place on record additional documents. 2. The plaintiff is permitted to file additional documents in accordance with the provisions of the CC Act and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. 3. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. I.A. 11825/2026 (Exemption from pre-litigation mediation) 4. This is an application filed by the plaintiff seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the CC Act. 5. As the present matter contemplates urgent interim relief, in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar vs. T.K.D. Keerthi : CS(COMM) 453/2026 Page 1 of 11 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2026 at 21:28:30 (2024) 5 SCC 815, exemption from the requirement of pre-institution mediation is granted. 6. The application stands disposed of. I.A. 11827/2026 (Exemption from filing clearer, translation and unredacted copies) 7. This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Section 151 of CPC seeking exemption from filing clearer, translation and unredacted copies along with the captioned suit. 8. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. However, true typed/translated/clear/unredacted copies of the documents with proper margins be filed within four weeks with an advance copy to the defendant. 9. The application stands disposed of. I.A. 11824/2026 (U/o XXXIX Rules 1 and 2) 10. Present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC , 1908 seeking ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendant. 11. The plaintiff-SmithKline Beecham Limited is a U.K. based company which is a prominent member of the G.S.K. Group of companies. GSK plc is stated to be the ultimate parent company of the G.S.K. Group, and the parent company of the plaintiff. GSK is a science-led global healthcare company with turnover in the years 2023, 2024 and 2025 of £30.3 billion, £31.4 billion and £32.7 billion respectively, worldwide. In 2025, GSK is stated to have achieved £13.5 billion and £10.0 billion in global turnover for its specialty medicine products and general medicine respectively. GSK is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world with more than 2 billion medicine and vaccine doses supplied in 2025. As of the end of 2025, the company employs over 66,000 employees across the world and has always laid strong emphasis on research and development to be able to produce many of the best-selling CS(COMM) 453/2026 Page 2 of 11 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2026 at 21:28:30 pharmaceutical and consumer healthcare products of the world. GSK's vaccine products achieved approx. £9.2 billion global turnover in 2025. 12. Established in the year 2000 following the merger of Glaxo Welcome plc and plaintiff, GSK claims to have a rich legacy dating back to the year 1715. GSK's global presence extends to more than 150 countries, where it operates commercial activities. The plaintiff claims that for the past many years, GSK has received the prestigious number one ranking in the Access to Medicine Index, which evaluates pharmaceutical companies worldwide based on their efforts to enhance medicine accessibility in developing regions. 13. GSK is claimed to have had a presence in India dating back over 100 years through its Indian subsidiary, GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited which was incorporated in 1924 and was listed on the Indian National Stock Exchange in 1969. GSK also supplies a number of vaccine products to the Indian market, including SHINGRIX, BOOSTRIX, SYNFLORIX, FLUARIX TETRA and INFANRIX. In India, GSK's pharmaceutical product portfolio includes AUGMENTIN, CALPOL, CCM, COBADEX CZS, NEOSPORIN, CEFTUM, ELTROXIN, BETNOVATE, and T-BACT. GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited is one of the market leaders in the Indian pharmaceutical sector with a turnover of over Rs.3,723 crores in FY 2024-25 and over Rs.3,407 in FY 2023-24 and currently employs over 3,113 people in India (as of March, 2025). The details of the awards and accolades received by the plaintiff in India are enumerated in para 19 of the plaint. 14. GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited, headquartered in Mumbai, has a large manufacturing unit in Nashik, Maharashtra. Inaugurated in 1983, the said unit is situated on 47 acres of land in Ambad Industrial Area and manufactures tablets, creams and ointments. Furthermore, through a warehousing and distribution network comprising 20 Contract Manufacturing CS(COMM) 453/2026 Page 3 of 11 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2026 at 21:28:30 Organisations and over 5,300 stockists covering over 1400 towns, it successfully provides superior timely patient service. 15. The plaintiff's trademark 'GSK' is the abbreviation of its parent company's former trade name GlaxoSmithKline plc. Following the formation of the parent company of the plaintiff, 'GSK' was adopted as a trademark and was used as a source identifier in relation to the plaintiff and its business. In due course of time, the plaintiff adopted and started using various GSK formative trademarks viz., 'GSK', , etc. 16. The plaintiff also claims to own statutory rights in and is the registered proprietor of the 'GSK' trademarks which are registered in numerous countries/territories worldwide. In India, the plaintiff filed for trademark registration of 'GSK' in the year 2000, the details of which are enumerated in para 23 of the plaint. 17. The plaintiff has used the trademark 'GSK' on its product packaging, annual reports, also on its branding and promotion as well as patient information materials. The trademark 'GSK' is the integral constituent of the domain name www.gsk.com which was registered on 07.081998. Further, the India specific domain name www.gsk.co.in also stands registered in the name of the plaintiff since 16.02.2005. 18. Plaintiff states that owing to the popularity of the 'GSK' trademarks, it has diligently and consistently pursued infringement of its 'GSK' trademarks and varied attempts by third parties to pass off their goods and services as those CS(COMM) 453/2026 Page 4 of 11 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2026 at 21:28:30 of the plaintiff. It is further claimed that the plaintiff's trademark 'GSK' belongs to the category of well-known, well-reputed and famous trademarks which is instantly identifiable and recognizable by both the members of the trade and public as being exclusively associated with the plaintiff and no one else. 19. It is stated that defendant no.1 is a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 2013 having its registered address in Dehradun, Uttarakhand and is engaged in the marketing of pharmaceuticals. It is stated that the trade name of the defendant no.1 is GHK Pharmaceuticals Private Limited which comprises "GHK" and is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's 'GSK' trademarks. Additionally, the defendant no.1 is using 'GHK' as a part of its domain name, on its website, as a part of its email address, on product packaging, third-party listings as well as on its advertising materials. 20. It is further stated that the defendant no.2 is the Director of defendant no.1 and has filed applications for registration of the impugned marks which contain the term "GHK" as the dominant part of the mark. In the year 2020, the plaintiff came across defendant no.2's trademark applications and proceeded to file notice of opposition against these applications, details of which are enumerated in para 32 of the plaint. 21. It is stated that in January, 2026, while still awaiting a hearing to be appointed in the oppositions, the plaintiff conducted a routine check into the activities of the defendants and came across its website accessible at https://ghkpharmaceuticals.com/. The registration information for the said domain revealed that it was registered on 29.07.2023. The plaintiff also came across listings for products under the impugned marks on third-party website. 22. It is further stated that given that the defendants were contesting the oppositions and had expanded their use of the mark "GHK", the plaintiff as a last attempt to resolve the matter amicably, issued a Cease and Desist letter CS(COMM) 453/2026 Page 5 of 11 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2026 at 21:28:30 dated 27.01.2026 to the defendants, which was responded vide reply dated 28.01.2026 refusing to comply with any of the requisitions. 23. It is asserted that the defendants have adopted the logo as well as other trademarks that contain the prefix "GHK", namely GHKRDSR (CAP.), GHKCAL, GHK-FIT, GHK-DSP (TAB.) and GHK-FE (TAB.). The mark 'GHK' is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark 'GSK', and has been used in relation to identical goods and services, being pharmaceuticals. It is submitted that the defendants' impugned marks and name featuring 'GHK' prominently bear such striking similarity to the plaintiff's 'GSK' trademarks that unwary consumers are highly likely to be confused, which would harm the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff. 24. Predicated thereon, the plaintiff seeks an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendants. 25. After having perused the plaint, and the documents annexed therewith and having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff, this Court is of the considered opinion that an ex-parte ad-interim injunction would be in order. 26. To appreciate the controversy, it would be relevant to have a comparative table of both the rival marks of the parties which is extracted hereunder:- PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT CS(COMM) 453/2026 Page 6 of 11 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2026 at 21:28:30 27. A comparison between the marks clearly indicate that the registered mark 'GSK' of the plaintiff and 'GHK' of the defendants would visually, structurally and conceptually be deceptively similar. Though the placement of the mark 'GHK' by the defendants on the packaging of its goods is in the center of such packaging while the mark 'GSK' of the plaintiff is ordinarily on the right top corner, having regard to the fact that both parties manufacture products falling in Class-5 i.e. pharmaceutical preparations and medicines, the deceptive similarity gathers greater significance. It is also to be noted that on the blister strip on the rear side of the defendant's products, the corporate name of the defendants along with the mark 'GHK' with different combination like 'GHKCAL', 'GHK-DSP' etc. appear which would add to the confusion in the minds of an ordinary consumer. While purchasing medicines and pharmaceutical preparations, an unwary consumer with an average intelligence and imperfect recollection is most likely to be confused or deceived believing the goods of the defendants to be that of the plaintiff. It cannot be denied that both the parties manufacture medicinal preparations in Class-5 and therefore, the trade circles, the distribution channels and the consumers would be CS(COMM) 453/2026 Page 7 of 11 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2026 at 21:28:30 common. Thus, confusion or deception on aforesaid account cannot be ruled out. 28. Though the defendants, in their response to the Cease and Desist notice of the plaintiff, have categorically stated that the difference between the letter 'H' and 'S' in both marks is neither trivial nor can be ignored, however, in the opinion of this Court, the distinction is not clearly discernible. It is also to be noted that while the plaintiff's mark 'GSK' was registered in Class-5 and Class-10 as far back as on 09.06.2000, the mark 'GHK' and other formative marks in Class-5 by the defendants were applied for registration only on 27.02.2020. The said mark was published in the Trade Marks Journal on 18.05.2020, and the plaintiff filed its opposition immediately thereafter on 18.09.2020. 29. The Supreme Court in Cadila Health Care Ltd. vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. : (2001) 5 SCC 73 held as under:- "25. The drugs have a marked difference in the compositions with completely different side effects, the test should be applied strictly as the possibility of harm resulting from any kind of confusion by the consumer can have unpleasant if not disastrous results. The courts need to be particularly vigilant where the defendant's drug, of which passing-off is alleged, is meant for curing the same ailment as the plaintiff's medicine but the compositions are different. The confusion is more likely in such cases and the incorrect intake of medicine may even result in loss of life or other serious health problems. In this regard, reference may usefully be made to the case of Glenwood Laboratories, Inc. v. American Home Products Corpn. [173 USPQ 19 (1972)455 F Reports 2d, 1384 (1972)] where it was held as under: "The products of the parties are medicinal and the applicant's product is contraindicated for the disease for which opposer's product is indicated. It is apparent that confusion or mistake in filling a prescription for either product could produce harmful effects. Under such circumstances it is necessary for obvious reasons, to avoid confusion or mistake in the dispensing of the pharmaceuticals." xxx xxx xxx 30. In the case of Syntex Laboratories Inc. v. Norwich Pharmacal Co. [169 USPQ 1 (2nd Cir 1971)] it is observed as under: "Stricter standard in order to prevent likelihood of confusion is desirable where involved trade marks are applied to different CS(COMM) 453/2026 Page 8 of 11 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2026 at 21:28:30 prescribed pharmaceutical products and where confusion could result in physical harm to the consuming public." xxx xxx xxx 32. Public interest would support lesser degree of proof showing confusing similarity in the case of trade mark in respect of medicinal products as against other non-medicinal products. Drugs are poisons, not sweets. Confusion between medicinal products may, therefore, be life threatening, not merely inconvenient. Noting the frailty of human nature and the pressures placed by society on doctors, there should be as many clear indicators as possible to distinguish two medicinal products from each other. It is not uncommon that in hospitals, drugs can be requested verbally and/or under critical/pressure situations. Many patients may be elderly, infirm or illiterate. They may not be in a position to differentiate between the medicine prescribed and bought which is ultimately handed over to them. This view finds support from McCarthy on Trade Marks, 3rd Edn., para 23.12 of which reads as under: "The tests of confusing similarity are modified when the goods involved are medicinal products. Confusion of source or product between medicinal products may produce physically harmful results to purchasers and greater protection is required than in the ordinary case. If the goods involved are medicinal products each with different effects and designed for even subtly different uses, confusion among the products caused by similar marks could have disastrous effects. For these reasons, it is proper to require a lesser quantum of proof of confusing similarity for drugs and medicinal preparations. The same standard has been applied to medical products such as surgical sutures and clavicle splints." Having regard to the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court, it cannot be said that the mere replacement of the letter 'S' in the plaintiff's mark 'GSK' by inserting the letter 'H' found in the defendant's mark 'GHK', a great distinction, which is easily discernible, can be made out. 30. That apart, the sales figures and the research and development expenditure furnished by the plaintiff also indicates its substantial goodwill and reputation as also its commitment to promote its registered trademark 'GSK' not only in India but globally as well. 31. Predicated on the above, it is evident that the plaintiff has been able to make a prima facie strong case in its favour as against the defendants. The balance of convenience is tilted in favour of the plaintiff, keeping in view the CS(COMM) 453/2026 Page 9 of 11 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2026 at 21:28:30 voluminous documentary evidence placed on record by the plaintiff. Plaintiff shall suffer irreparable loss and injury which may not be compensated adequately in monetary terms in case ex-parte ad-interim injunction orders are not passed. 32. In view of the above, the following directions are passed:- (i) The defendants, their employees, servants, agents and all others in active concert with them are restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in goods or services under the impugned marks GHK-RDSR (CAP.), GHKCAL, GHK-FIT, GHK-DSP (TAB.), GHK-FE (TAB.) and comprising 'GHK', and/or any other mark which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's 'GSK' trademarks; (ii) The defendants are directed to take down its website accessible at https://ghkpharmaceuticals.com/ till the pendency of the suit; (iii) The defendants are directed to take down all references to the impugned marks or name 'GHK Pharmaceuticals Private Limited' on its website, social media and third-party platforms; 33. Issue notice. 34. Let a reply to this application be filed by the defendant within four weeks from service. Rejoinder, thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. 35. Compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC shall be done within ten days from date. CS(COMM) 453/2026 36. Let the plaint be registered as a suit. CS(COMM) 453/2026 Page 10 of 11 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2026 at 21:28:30 37. Upon filing of the process fee, issue summons of the suit to the defendant through all permissible modes. 38. The summons shall state that the Written Statement shall be filed by the defendant within 30 days from the date of the receipt of summons. Alongwith the Written Statement, the defendant shall also file Affidavit of Admission/Denial of the documents of the plaintiff, without which the Written Statement shall not be taken on record. 39. Liberty is granted to the plaintiff to file Replication, if any, within 30 days from the receipt of the Written Statement. Along with the Replication filed by the plaintiff, an Affidavit of Admission/Denial of the documents of defendant be filed by the plaintiff, without which the Replication shall not be taken on record. 40. In case any party is placing reliance on a document, which is not in their power and possession, its details and source shall be mentioned in the list of reliance, which shall also be filed with the pleadings. 41. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same shall be sought and given within the prescribed timelines. 42. List before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on 31.07.2026 for completion of service and pleadings. 43. List before the Court on 13.10.2026. TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J APRIL 28, 2026 yrj CS(COMM) 453/2026 Page 11 of 11 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2026 at 21:28:30
Cancel
Update Case