Trademark Protection in the Domain of Pharmaceuticals

I. Introduction

The principle surrounding deceptive similarity/ identity between trademarks occupies a critical and sensitive position within the pharmaceutical industry. Unlike consumer goods, any confusion arising from deceptively similar trademarks in relation to pharmaceutical products may have consequences far more serious than ordinary commercial confusion. Any instance of deceptive similarity in trademarks concerning medicinal products can result in adverse health consequences of consumers at large.

In view of such risks to public health surrounding the pharmaceutical industry, the Indian courts have in the past laid down a stricter scrutiny standard when evaluating the scope and presence of deceptive similarity of trademarks in relation to medicinal products. Landmark judicial pronouncements, such as, Cadila v. Cadila[1] and Cadila v. MK Pharmaceuticals[2], have time and again emphasized on the refinement of tests for ascertaining deceptive similarity for brand names of pharma products. These cases have recognized public health risks relating to similar drug names, especially when such similar drug names are for medicinal preparations having similar nature and description.

Recently, the case of Novo Nordisk A/S & Anr. v. Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited[3] revisited the established judicial approach taken by Courts in the past, to determine trademark infringement and passing off in the sphere of pharmaceuticals.

The interplay between patent and trademark protection in the dispute also reveals an important commercial dimension: as patent exclusivity approaches its end, substantial value created around the patented product may become embedded in the goodwill of its brand, resulting in what may be described as a transfer of value[4] from ‘patent exclusivity’ to ‘trademark goodwill’.

This article discuss this dispute and its valuable takeaways.

II. Background of the dispute

Novo Nordisk (“Novo”), a Danish pharmaceutical company enjoyed patent rights over the active pharmaceutical ingredient ‘Semaglutide’ which was present in the anti-diabetic drug named ‘Ozempic’. This anti-diabetic drug is quite popular in the medical as well as cosmetic industry and has been a sought-after product for the purpose of reducing body fat within a short period of time.

When the patent rights enjoyed by Novo over semaglutide were about to expire (in March 2026), Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (“DRL”), prepared to launch generic versions of semaglutide under the name ‘Obeda’ and also adopted an additional mark namely, ‘Olymviq’ (“conflicting name”). DRL had commenced marketing and promotional activities relating to generic semaglutide prior to expiry of the patent. Following expiry of the patent, DRL launched the semaglutide injection in India under the brand OBEDA.

Novo’s original patent dispute between the parties:

It is important to also mention that Novo had initially (in May 2025) filed a patent infringement suit against DRL seeking an interim injunction to halt the production of the drug containing semaglutide launched by DRL, till their patent expires on 20 March 2026.

Against such patent infringement claims, DRL had argued that Novo’s patent was neither novel nor inventive, as semaglutide had already been disclosed under Novo’s earlier genus patent which had expired. They further claimed that the subsequent species patent was merely an attempt by Novo to extend their monopolistic rights over semaglutide.

The Delhi High Court, in December 2025, found credibility in DRL’s challenge to the validity of Novo’s existing patent, but DRL remained bound not to sell the product in India until Novo’s patent expiry. However, the Court allowed DRL to continue manufacturing and exporting the said drug to countries where Novo did not hold the relevant patent.

Novo’s appeal from the previous order of the Court was dismissed on 9 March 2026, eleven (11) days before the patent expiry.

The trademark angle: OZEMPIC v. OLYMVIQ

Novo subsequently approached the Delhi High Court against DRL’s drug Olymviq, this time with a suit of trademark infringement and passing off for the use of a confusingly and/or deceptively similar mark. Novo claimed that their brand ‘Ozempic’ was a coined and fanciful mark which had been in continuous use since 2014 and had received registrations in over 100 countries, and had generated approximately $63 billion global sales in the last five years.

Novo also argued that the drug name Olymviq was quite confusing and deceptively similar as both the products contained semaglutide and was commercially available through common channels of trade. In order to put forth their arguments, Novo relied on earlier judicial observations affirming principles such as ‘physicians are not immune from confusion or mistakes’ and ‘the risk of errors rapidly increases when the drug names sound alike’. In view of the same, Novo sought an urgent relief by the Hon’ble Court to restrain DRL’s product under the conflicting name Olymviq.

During the hearing, the Court expressed a prima facie view that there was phonetic similarity between the marks and indicated that, in the pharmaceutical context, it was unwilling to settle on the higher threshold principles applicable to potentially confusing marks.

DRL agreed to change the name of their drug from ‘Olymviq’ to ‘Olymra’ and to withdraw the pending trademark applications which were filed for the conflicting name. The new name ‘Olymra’ was accepted by Novo.

With respect to the disposal of the existing stock of DRL’s drugs, the Court allowed DRL to sell the existing stock of injections within a period of 30 days, instead of calling for destruction of the same. The Hon’ble Court further stated that in case any stock is left after the expiry of 30 days, the same shall be donated to a government hospital in the presence of an authorized representative of Novo, as there were no questions with respect to the quality of DRL’s generic variant.

III. Concluding Remarks

The Ozempic v. Olymviq dispute brings into focus the principle that the threshold of determining deceptive similarity in relation to medicinal and pharmaceutical products should be stricter in comparison to consumer goods.

Additionally, the legal outcomes of the dispute serve a fine example of the interplay between two different forms of IP protection across the life cycle of a blockbuster pharmaceutical product – while the primary one expires, the other may become even more strategically significant thereafter. In the live example discussed in this article, during the life of ‘semaglutide’ patent, Novo enjoyed exclusivity over the patented invention. However, the product brand OZEMPICunder that exclusivity alongside gained enormous recognition, generate familiarity and goodwill. Patent expiry opened up valid generic competition, but it did not diminish the value accumulated in the brand name.

This brings us to key takeaways of the dispute: trademark protection can therefore become a powerful post-patent competitive shield. Importantly, that shield protects the brand and its source-identifying goodwill, not the formerly patented products itself. Competitors remain free to manufacture and market the generic product once patent protection expires, but they must build their own distinct brand identity rather than trade too closely upon the recognition accumulated by the innovator’s mark.

Contributed by: Aditi Verma Thakur and Doyita Mukherjee

[1] Order dated 26^th March 2001 in 2001(5) SCC 73

[2] Order dated 23^rd July 2007 in MIPR 2007 (3) 170

[3] Order dated 30th March 2026 in CS(COMM) 317/2026 & I.As. 8033/2026, 8035/2026, 8037/2026, 8039/2026

[4] Value transference refers to the process by which commercial value created during a period of patent exclusivity becomes embedded in the product’s brand and goodwill, allowing the trademark to retain significant competitive value even after the patent itself expires.