• Today: November 02, 2025

cadila-healthcare-ltd-v-cadila-pharmaceuticals

02 November, 2025
301
Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals (2001) — Passing Off & Deceptive Similarity | The Law Easy
```

Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals — 2001 (21) PTC 541 (SC)

Passing off in pharma: are Falcitab and Falcigo deceptively similar? The Supreme Court’s checklist for confusing marks and patient safety.

Supreme Court of India 2001 Division Bench 2001 (21) PTC 541 Passing Off / TM ~7 min read
CASE_TITLE: Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: passing off, deceptive similarity, pharma trademarks SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Falcitab, Falcigo, consumer protection PUBLISH_DATE: 2025-11-01 AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India slug: cadila-healthcare-ltd-v-cadila-pharmaceuticals
Illustration for Cadila Healthcare v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals: medicine names and trademark confusion
```

Quick Summary

This case is about passing off between two anti-malaria drugs: Falcitab and Falcigo. The Supreme Court set a strict test for confusing similarity in medicines, because confusion can cost lives. It listed practical factors for courts to weigh before deciding who is misrepresenting and whether buyers are likely to be misled.

  • Higher care for pharma marks due to public health.
  • Check visual, phonetic, and idea similarity together.
  • Look at buyers, prescription context, and purchase mode.

Issues

  1. Does the sale of the drug Falcigo amount to passing off against the maker of Falcitab?
  2. Are the marks Falcitab and Falcigo deceptively similar for the same therapeutic use?

Rules

  • Passing Off (classic trio): (i) Goodwill in the mark; (ii) Misrepresentation likely to confuse buyers; (iii) Damage due to that confusion.
  • Deceptive Similarity — Cadila Checklist:
    • Nature of the marks: word/label/composite.
    • Degree of similarity: look, sound, and idea.
    • Nature, character, and performance of goods.
    • Buyer profile: literacy, care, and context (doctors/chemists/patients).
    • Trade channel and purchase mode (OTC vs prescription).
    • Surrounding circumstances relevant to confusion.

Facts (Timeline)

Competing Drugs

Two pharma companies launched anti-malarial drugs: Falcitab and Falcigo for cerebral malaria.

Trade Marks

Regulatory permissions and trademark filings were made in successive years (1996–1997).

Suit & Interim Orders

Injunction sought in District Court was refused; appeal to High Court also failed on interim relief.

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court laid down a principled test for deceptive similarity in pharma and sent the case for decision accordingly.

Timeline for Cadila case: competing drugs, TM filings, interim orders, Supreme Court guidance

Arguments

Appellant
  • Falcigo is deceptively similar to Falcitab in sound and idea.
  • High risk of confusion in drug dispensing; public interest demands caution.
  • Goodwill exists; misrepresentation likely; damage follows.
Respondent
  • Marks are distinguishable; packaging and context reduce confusion.
  • Prescription system and professional supervision prevent mistake.
  • No proof of damage or diversion of trade.

Judgment (Held)

The Supreme Court did not disturb the lower courts’ interim orders. It set out clear principles for deciding passing off in pharma, stressing public health. Courts must assess similarity in sight, sound, and sense, buyer care, trade channels, and all surrounding facts. The trial court was directed to decide the suit applying these observations.

Judgment visual for Cadila case: deceptive similarity test and public health caution

Ratio Decidendi

In pharma passing off, even slight phonetic similarity can be fatal. The test is the overall impression on an average buyer in real conditions—doctors, chemists, and patients with varying literacy and care. Public interest tips the scale toward avoiding confusion.

Why It Matters

  • Patient safety first: Confusing drug names can cause wrong medication.
  • Drafting practice: Choose pharma marks that are far apart in look and sound.
  • Litigation roadmap: Apply the Cadila checklist to build or defend a case.

Key Takeaways

  • Passing off needs goodwill, misrepresentation, damage.
  • Assess visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarity.
  • Pharma marks: stricter scrutiny.
  • Buyer profile and purchase mode matter.
  • Public interest can outweigh technical differences.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “See–Say–Sense, then Safety.”

  1. See: Compare how the marks look.
  2. Say: Compare how they sound.
  3. Sense: Compare the idea they convey.

Safety check: In medicines, when in doubt, avoid confusion.

IRAC Outline

Issue Whether Falcigo amounts to passing off against Falcitab due to deceptive similarity.
Rule Goodwill–Misrepresentation–Damage; Cadila factors for similarity and buying context, with higher caution in pharma.
Application Marks compared in sight, sound, and sense; consider consumers (doctors, chemists, patients), and purchase conditions.
Conclusion Supreme Court laid guidelines and remitted for decision per those principles; interim orders remained.

Glossary

Passing Off
Common-law action preventing misrepresentation that damages another’s goodwill.
Deceptive Similarity
Similarity that is likely to confuse average buyers about trade origin.
Phonetic Similarity
When two marks sound alike when spoken, risking confusion at pharmacies.

FAQs

Not strictly. Likelihood of confusion is enough, especially for medicines where risk must be minimized.

Yes, overall impression matters—name, look, color, get-up, and how buyers ask for or receive the drug.

Still strict. Errors can occur at clinics or pharmacies; courts assume varied literacy and busy settings.

Yes, if the shared part dominates the buyer’s memory or speech, making confusion likely.

Reviewed by The Law Easy

Trademark Pharma Passing Off
```
Decorative court imagery for passing off and deceptive similarity in medicines

Comment

Nothing for now