Background
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited markets BEVETEX, an oncology drug containing paclitaxel (a chemotherapy agent). Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited markets BEVATAS, a cancer drug containing bevacizumab (a monoclonal antibody angiogenesis inhibitor). Despite treating overlapping cancer patient populations, the two drugs are not therapeutic substitutes — they contain different active pharmaceutical ingredients, act through different mechanisms, and serve different oncological indications.
In March 2026, a Delhi High Court single judge found the marks BEVATAS and BEVETEX deceptively similar — largely on the basis of visual and phonetic comparison — and issued a permanent injunction against Intas. A Division Bench stayed that injunction in April 2026 pending appeal, allowing Intas to continue selling existing BEVATAS inventory. The Division Bench then heard the full appeal and issued a final ruling on June 6, 2026, setting aside the injunction entirely.
Notably, the two marks had coexisted in the Indian pharmaceutical market for nearly a decade (since approximately 2016) without any documented instance of actual confusion.
The Court’s Holding
The Division Bench reversed the single judge on all material points and vacated the injunction against BEVATAS.
Evidence standard at trial: The court’s most significant holding addresses the methodology for trademark infringement analysis in post-trial proceedings. The Division Bench held that after a full trial, a finding of likelihood of confusion must be grounded in evidence actually adduced at trial — documents, expert testimony, survey data, or market evidence. It cannot rest solely on a judicial comparison of the marks themselves. The single judge’s comparison-based analysis was therefore methodologically deficient.
INN-derived prefixes are publici juris: The prefix “BEV/BEVA” derives from the International Non-Proprietary Name (INN) “Bevacizumab,” an internationally designated generic name for the underlying molecule. The court held that INN-derived elements belong to the public domain — they are publici juris — and cannot be monopolized by any single trademark owner. Because the shared prefix has no source-identifying function, it cannot support a confusion claim.
Phonetic and visual distinction: The suffixes “TAS” and “TEX” create “entirely different auditory impressions.” When the marks are assessed in their entirety (including the suffix), the phonetic similarity falls short of the deceptive similarity standard.
No actual confusion after a decade of coexistence: Perhaps the most practical finding: the two marks had been sold concurrently since approximately 2016 across the Indian oncology market, and Sun Pharma had produced no evidence of a single instance of actual market confusion. Ten years of parallel use without documented confusion is powerful evidence that confusion is not likely.
Prescription-only context: Both BEVATAS and BEVETEX are Schedule H prescription medications administered under oncologist supervision in hospital or clinical settings. The court found that the sophisticated-prescriber and institutional-purchaser context substantially reduces the risk that ordinary market forces would cause confusion.
Key Takeaways
- Post-trial trademark infringement findings must be based on actual evidentiary record — mark comparison alone is insufficient. This elevates the litigation burden on trademark plaintiffs who proceed to trial rather than seeking preliminary relief only.
- International Non-Proprietary Names (INNs) and their common prefixes/stems are in the public domain; no trademark holder can obtain exclusive rights to INN-derived elements, even when registered as part of a branded name.
- A decade of concurrent market use without any actual confusion is strong — potentially decisive — evidence against likelihood of confusion, particularly in specialized, prescription-only markets.
- Indian courts are applying a sophisticated-purchaser standard in pharmaceutical trademark cases, recognizing that oncologists and hospital pharmacists are not ordinary consumers likely to confuse Schedule H drugs.
Why It Matters
Pharmaceutical trademark disputes in India are a major battleground: the country is one of the world’s largest generic-drug producers, and many brand-name vs. generic conflicts involve drug names that share INN-derived stems. This ruling signals that Indian courts will protect the public-domain character of INN elements — a significant protection for generic manufacturers who follow naming conventions endorsed by the World Health Organization.
More broadly, the decision advances a sensible doctrine that trademark infringement analysis after full trial must be evidentially rigorous. A plaintiff who has had the opportunity to gather and present confusion evidence, but relies instead on purely visual mark comparison, will face a high bar on appeal. This principle aligns with the evidentiary discipline that courts in the UK and EU have increasingly applied to likelihood-of-confusion assessments in the pharmaceutical context.