Sanitary Napkins v. Medicines: Delhi High Court on Dissimilar Goods in Same class

By Shilpi Saurav Sharan and Huda Jafri

Introduction

In the fiercely competitive world of trademarks, a single word or phrase can become a powerful symbol distinguishing a business, securing its reputation, and fostering loyalty among consumers. But when two brands with similar names collide, especially in different market spaces, a delicate legal balance emerges: How far can the law protect a trader’s mark without stifling competition or granting an unfair monopoly?

This delicate intersection between protecting intellectual property and preserving market fairness lies at the core of many trademark disputes. At its heart are the questions: What constitutes confusion? When does imitation become unfair? And to what extent can a business prohibit its competitors from choosing a name that resonates with their own?

In a recent decision, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of RSPL Health Pvt. Ltd. v. Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited & Anr.[1], offers a significant precedent in navigating these complex issues demonstrating that similar marks do not necessarily conflict when the respective products, their purposes, their markets, and their consumers are sufficiently different. The ruling underscores a key principle: trademark rights are meant to enable fair competition and protect consumers from confusion not to create unwarranted monopolies or undermine a competitor’s ability to distinguish its products.

Brief Facts of the Case

RSPL, owner of the trademarks “PRO-EASE” , uses the mark for sanitary napkins, sanitary towels, and pads. RSPL instituted a suit seeking to prohibit Sun Pharma from using the mark “PRUEASE”  in connection with its medicine for constipation.

RSPL’s application for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) was dismissed by the District Judge. RSPL then preferred an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, challenging the order before a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.

Contentions of the Parties

RSPL:

• RSPL alleged that Sun Pharma’s adoption of “Pruease” was dishonest and intended to cause confusion by imitating its “Pro-ease” mark.
• RSPL argued that the marks were phonetically and visually similar, and their concurrent use was likely to confuse or deceive the public.

Sun Pharma:

• Sun Pharma contended that it had independently coined the mark “Pruease” by combining the first three letters of its active pharmaceutical ingredient Prucalopride with “Ease” to reflect its therapeutic use in relieving constipation.
• Sun Pharma argued that the two sets of products:
• sanitary napkins and
• constipation medication

Are different in nature, serve different purposes, and are marketed through different channels of trade.

• Sun Pharma also stressed its prior and continuous use of the mark “Pruease” since 2017, much before RSPL raised its claim.

Judgement:

The Division Bench of Hon’ble Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur dismissed RSPL’s appeal.

The key findings by the Court include:

• No likelihood of confusion:
  The Court held that the two products, sanitary napkins and constipation medicines are different in nature, purpose, trade channels, and target consumers. Consequently, there is no likelihood of confusion due to their concurrent use under their respective marks.“The nature of the goods, their trade channel, their purpose, and the intended consumers are distinct, and there is no likelihood of confusion being caused by the use of the marks for such goods.”
• Reliance on Supreme Court precedent:
  The Hon’ble Delhi High Court referred to the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers’ Federation Ltd.[2], where it was held that if a trader is actually dealing in only some of the products falling under a broad class of goods, and there’s no bona fide intention to use the mark in relation to the other goods within that class, then the trader cannot claim a monopoly over the entire class of goods
• No prima facie case or balance of convenience:
  The Court held that RSPL failed to make a prima facie case, and the balance of convenience was in Sun Pharma’s favor, noting its prior use since 2017.
  Sun Pharma’s adoption of its mark was bona fide and in accordance with industry practice — adding a suffix “Ease” to reflect its product’s therapeutic use.
• No irreparable harm:
  The Court further held that RSPL would not suffer irreparable harm, and if it eventually were to succeed, monetary damages would be a sufficient remedy.
• Packaging and presentation:
  Additionally, the packaging, label, and the overall presentation of the two products were sufficiently different. Furthermore, Sun Pharma made it clear that it had no intention of using its mark for sanitary products, addressing RSPL’s main concern.

Conclusion

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s ruling underscores a key principle of trademark law: the likelihood of confusion must be assessed in context, considering the nature of the goods, their respective trade channels, and their target consumers. Mere similarity in marks is not enough to prohibit their use when there’s no realistic likelihood of confusion or deception. This judgment further clarifies that trademark rights do not confer a monopoly over an entire class of goods in the absence of a real likelihood of confusion or dishonest intent.

[1] RSPL Health Pvt. Ltd. v. Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited & Anr, FAO (COMM) 65/2025

[2] Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers’ Federation Ltd.,(2018) 9 SCC 183