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)
Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited
Respondent / Defendant
Orziva Healthcare Private Limited & Ors
Dispute Summary
Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited filed a lawsuit against Orziva Healthcare Private Limited & Ors for trademark infringement and passing off. The court granted an injunction restraining the Defendants from manufacturing and selling products under the impugned marks ORZIFER-XT, which are deceptively similar to Emcure's trademarks OROFER and OROFER-XT. The court found that Emcure has established a strong reputation and goodwill in its trademarks and that the Defendants' actions are likely to cause irreparable damage to Emcure's goodwill and reputation.
Outcome / Ruling
plaintiff_favorable
Verdict Document PDF URL
Full text judgment
[Cites 3 , Cited by 0 ] Delhi High Court - Orders Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited vs Orziva Healthcare Private Limited & Ors on 29 May, 2026 Author: Jyoti Singh Bench: Jyoti Singh $~59 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 541/2026 EMCURE PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED .....Plaintiff Through: Ms. Archana Sahadeva, Ms. Shiwangi Singh, Ms. Monisha Mane Bhangale, Ms. Bijal Vora, Ms. Amishi Sodani, Ms. Kavish Arora, Mr. Pranav Sarthi, Mr. Ayush Raj, Ms. Prachi Dhingra, Mr. Udit Bajpai, Mr. Utkarsh Vatsa, Advocates. versus ORZIVA HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. .....Defendants Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH ORDER % 29.05.2026 CS(COMM) 541/2026 1. List before the learned Joint Registrar on 03.08.2026. I.A. 14298/2026 2. This application is filed on behalf of Plaintiffs under Order XI Rules 1, 2 and 5 of CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking discovery and disclosure along with supporting affidavit. 3. Issue notice to the Defendants, through all permissible modes, returnable before the learned Joint Registrar on 25.09.2026. I.A. 14297/2026 (u/O XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC) 4. Summons were issued in the suit as also notice in the present application on 21.05.2026, returnable before Court on 26.05.2026. Affidavit CS(COMM) 541/2026 Page 1 of 9 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 01/06/2026 at 21:31:55 of service filed by the Plaintiff shows that Defendants have been served through electronic mode on email id taken from the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Matter was passed over twice but there is no appearance on behalf of the Defendants. Be it noted that even on 26.05.2026, none had appeared for the Defendants despite service and in the interest justice, adverse order was deferred and matter was listed for today. 5. Case of Plaintiff as set out in the plaint is that Plaintiff is one of the leading pharmaceutical companies in the world, offering a wide range of products in categories including gynaecology, cardiology, blood-related, oncology, respiratory, CNS & HIV amongst others. Plaintiff operates and maintains its website https://www.emcure.com/ dispensing extensive information about its functioning and objectives. 6. It is stated that Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademark OROFER which was conceived and adopted in 1996 and has been continuously used since then for gynaecological products used especially during Anaemia. Plaintiff has also introduced multiple variants of the said trademark such as OROFER-EPO, OROFER-XT, OROFER FCM, OROFER-S, / . The trademark registrations in favour of the Plaintiff are as follows:- 7. It is stated that Plaintiff enjoys trademarks registrations in foreign jurisdiction also as follows:- CS(COMM) 541/2026 Page 2 of 9 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 01/06/2026 at 21:31:55 8. It is stated that Plaintiff has devised a distinctive trade dress/packaging for its capsules and tonics, the artistic work in which was designed by in-house designers and in which copyright subsists in favour of the Plaintiff. The unique products and packaging are as follows:- CS(COMM) 541/2026 Page 3 of 9 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 01/06/2026 at 21:31:55 CS(COMM) 541/2026 Page 4 of 9 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 01/06/2026 at 21:31:55 9. It is stated that Plaintiff has earned enviable goodwill and reputation by sale of its products under its registered marks and unique trade dress/packaging. Plaintiff has extensive social media presence for its products including with respect to trademark OROFER-XT, as follows:- 10. It is stated that the goodwill and reputation is corroborated by the revenues earned and expenditure incurred on promotion and advertisements, details of which are as follows:- Sales Turnover CS(COMM) 541/2026 Page 5 of 9 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 01/06/2026 at 21:31:55 Expenses incurred on promotion 11. It is stated that trademarks OROFER/ including its variant OROFER-XT/ is a highly coveted brand of the Plaintiff and for the said trademark, Plaintiff was awarded 'Brand of the Year -- Chronic/ Subchronic Gold Award' in 2018 and the `Bronze Award' in 2019. Plaintiff has been extremely vigilant in prosecuting its rights pertaining to its intellectual property and has filed several law suits in different High Courts, as detailed in the plaint. 12. It is stated that Defendants have adopted the impugned marks ORZIFER-XT/ , which are nearly identical to Plaintiff's trademarks OROFER/ /OROFER-XT/ for identical product used for treating anaemia and comprise of same ingredients as those of Plaintiff's drug. Defendants' impugned product prominently displays the impugned marks on the packaging with a view to confuse the public. CS(COMM) 541/2026 Page 6 of 9 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 01/06/2026 at 21:31:55 Defendants make available their products on online market places such as www.indiamart.com and www.apollopharmacy.in, URLs for which have been furnished in the plaint. On becoming aware, Plaintiff issued a cease and desist notice dated 17.12.2025, however, there was no response. 13. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff submits that Defendants have adopted nearly identical marks ORZIFER-XT/ for nearly identical products and trade channels and consumer base being common, confusion amongst members of public is inevitable. Plaintiff's products under the marks OROFER/OROFER-XT are Schedule-H drugs which are essentially prescribed by doctors for treating anaemia inter alia during pregnancy. The confusion arising out of the Defendants' adopted a nearly identical mark for nearly identical products can cause serious harm and injury to the patients especially pregnant women who may end up purchasing Defendants' nutraceuticals. 14. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff submits that Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of trademark OROFER and its variations in Classes 05 and 29 and any unauthorized use of a deceptively similar mark by Defendants for nearly identical products amounts to infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 ('1999 Act') and violates statutory rights of the Plaintiff. The trademarks OROFER/ /OROFER-XT/ are unique and distinct trademarks and Plaintiff has acquired immese goodwill in the said marks and they are associated in the minds of the public only with the Plaintiff. By using the impunged marks ORZIFER-XT/ , Defendants are attempting to misrepresent to the public that there is some connection of their products with the Plaintiff so as to pass off their goods. CS(COMM) 541/2026 Page 7 of 9 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 01/06/2026 at 21:31:55 Plaintiff has been extremely vigilant in protecting its intellectual property rights in its trademarks and has filed law suits in this Court to restrain infringers and refers to order dated 19.09.2024 in CS(COMM) 810/2024 and order dated 11.12.2025 in CS(COMM) 1327/2025 where Courts have granted ex parte ad interim injunctions against third parties. 15. Having heard learned counsel for Plaintiff and upon perusal of the documents as well as the rival marks, I am of the view that Plaintiff has made out a prima facie for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction against the Defendant. Balance of convenience lies in favour of Plaintiff and it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the interim injunction, as prayed for, is not granted. 16. Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of OROFER trademarks and its variants. Defendants are using the impugned marks ORZIFER- XT/ which are visually, structurally and phonetically deceptively similar. The impugned products are neutraceutical in the form of iron tonic. Trade channels and consumer base are common and thus there is likelihood of confusion amongst members of public. Plaintiff is right that any confusion in the nature of products in question can be extremely harmful for consuming patients. In my prima facie view, Defendants are infringing the marks of the Plaintiff and violating the statutory right of the Plaintiff to exclusive use of its registered marks as also to restrain third parties from infringing. The intent and purpose of the Defendants to adopt deceptively similar/nearly identical marks for nearly identical products is with the objective of encashing on the formidable goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff, garnered over the years to misrepresent to the public and CS(COMM) 541/2026 Page 8 of 9 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 01/06/2026 at 21:31:55 potential customers that their goods emanate from the house of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff rightly contends that Defendants are causing irreparable damage to its goodwill and reputation. Defendants are prima facie passing off their goods as those of the Plaintiff. In my view, the three ingredients of trinity principles for grant of injunction are met in the present case. Plaintiff has furnished some URLs in paragraph 31 of the plaint, on which at some stage impugned products were available, however, it is stated in the same paragraph that as of date, products are not shown on these links. In light of this stand, no order of take down is being passed. Plaintiff will, however, be at liberty to take recourse to appropriate remedies in case the impunged products re-surface on these links. 17. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, Defendants, their directors, executives, partners, proprietors, principal officers, assignees, retailers, distributors, wholesalers, family members and anyone acting for and on their behalf are restrained from manufacturing and selling, distributing, offering for sale, advertising or promoting the impugned products under the impugned marks ORZIFER-XT/ or any other mark which is identical/deceptively similar to Plaintiff's trademarks OROFER/ / OROFER-XT/ , amounting to infringement of trademarks and/or passing off. 18. Plaintiff shall comply with the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC within a period of two weeks from today. 19. List before Court on 25.09.2026. JYOTI SINGH, J MAY 29, 2026/S.Sharma CS(COMM) 541/2026 Page 9 of 9 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 01/06/2026 at 21:31:55
Cancel
Update Case