Cadila Lab v. Dabur Pharma Ltd (1997)

Quick Summary

Cadila used the mark “Mexate” for methotrexate injections. Dabur later used “Zexate”. Cadila asked for a temporary ban, saying the names are confusing. The Delhi High Court said: the prefixes are different (M vs Z), buyers are prescription users, and confusion at this stage is unlikely. No interim injunction.

Issues

• Are “Mexate” and “Zexate” deceptively similar for cancer medicines?
• Should Dabur be stopped temporarily from using “Zexate”?

Rules

• Deceptive similarity depends on many factors: look/sound, kind of goods, buyer class, trade channel, and context.
• For prescription (Schedule H) drugs, courts expect careful buying under a doctor’s advice.
• Interim relief needs a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable harm.

Facts (Timeline)

1989: Cadila registers “Mexate” for methotrexate sodium injections.

1991: Cadila starts use of the “Mexate” mark for cancer treatment.

1995: Dabur launches “Zexate”—same therapeutic field; name differs mainly at the first letter.

Pleadings: Cadila claims likelihood of deception; Dabur says prescription drugs + different prefixes = no confusion.

Hearing: Delhi HC evaluates similarity, buyer care, and interim relief standards.

Order: Request for temporary restraint is refused.

Arguments (Appellant vs Respondent)

Judgment

The Court denied the temporary injunction. It held that “Mexate” and “Zexate” are not deceptively similar enough for interim relief, mainly due to distinct prefixes and the informed, prescription-led nature of the market. Dabur was directed to keep sales records and be ready to pay damages if Cadila ultimately succeeds.

Ratio Decidendi

• Prefix difference can change the mark’s overall identity.
• Prescription-only regime reduces confusion risk.
• Interim relief needs clear confusion risk and stronger prima facie case.

Why It Matters

Pharma trademark disputes are strict, but context matters. Courts weigh buyer care and small differences in marks. For interim orders, proof must be strong and immediate.

Key Takeaways

1. Deceptive similarity = multi-factor test, not spelling alone.
2. Schedule H context lowers confusion assumptions.
3. Interim injunction needs a clear and urgent confusion risk.
4. Keep sales records—damages may follow if plaintiff wins later.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Prefix–Patient–Proof”

1. Prefix: Check first-letter impact on overall impression.
2. Patient: Is the buyer class careful (Schedule H)?
3. Proof: Show strong confusion evidence for interim relief.

IRAC Outline

Glossary

Deceptive Similarity

A mark that is so close to another that it may mislead an average buyer.

Schedule H

Prescription-only medicines sold under medical supervision.

Interim Injunction

Temporary court order to maintain status quo until the suit is decided.

FAQs

Related Cases

• Cadila Health Care v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals — leading test for pharma marks.
• F. Hoffmann-La Roche v. Geoffrey Manners — similarity in pharma trademarks.
• Schering Corp. v. Alkem Laboratories — interim relief in drug mark disputes.