The Delhi High Court on Wednesday asked Dr Reddy’s Laboratories to not proceed with further sale or market expansion of its diabetes drug under the mark “Olymviq”, after finding prima facie phonetic similarity with Novo Nordisk’s drug Ozempic. (Novo Nordisk v. Dr Reddy's)

The direction was issued orally by Justice Jyoti Singh during the hearing, while considering Novo Nordisk’s plea alleging trademark infringement and passing off.

“According to me, there is a phonetic similarity…and in a pharma, it's a threshold which I would not like to cross,” the Court observed.

The dispute arises in the immediate aftermath of Dr Reddy’s launch of its generic Semaglutide injection in India, following the expiry of Novo Nordisk’s patent over the drug in March 2026.

On March 21, Dr Reddy’s launched its injectable Semaglutide under the brand “Obeda”, positioning it as a significantly cheaper alternative to Novo Nordisk’s blockbuster drugs Ozempic and Wegovy.

During the hearing, Dr Reddy’s stated that it had already launched the product in the market, while also indicating that its Semaglutide portfolio included other brand names such as “Obeda.”

This became a point of contention, with Novo Nordisk arguing that public-facing material and media reports referred only to “Obeda”, while the allegedly infringing mark “Olymviq” was not part of the announced launch.

The Court also flagged inconsistencies in Dr Reddy’s launch timeline, noting that its trademark application for “Olymviq” described the mark as “proposed to be used” despite claims of a prior commercial rollout.

Novo Nordisk argued that pharmaceutical trademarks are subject to a heightened anti-confusion standard, where even a possibility of confusion must be avoided in public interest. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, it submitted that confusion can arise even among doctors and pharmacists due to illegible prescriptions, telephonic communication and human error.

“If there is any possibility of such confusion in the case of medicines, public policy requires…prevention of confusingly similar names,” the company argued.

It also contended that the test is one of imperfect recollection and that phonetic and structural similarity alone is sufficient in infringement actions. Differences in packaging or additional branding, it argued, are immaterial if the essential features of the mark are adopted.

On balance of convenience, Novo Nordisk submitted that permitting continued sales would flood the market and create third-party equities, making any later restraint ineffective.

Dr Reddy’s argued that the presence of its house mark would eliminate confusion.

The Court was not persuaded, observing that consumers primarily rely on the product name.

“One has to really go looking and hunting for it,” the Court remarked while examining the packaging.

In a bid to resolve the dispute, the Court suggested that Dr Reddy’s consider adopting an alternative mark, “Obeda”, which it noted was already associated with the company.

“I would rather that you go up this path…It’s a little change of a name here and there,” the Court said.

The Court cautioned that if it is not persuaded on the next date, an interim injunction may follow.

Thus, the Court directed Dr Reddy’s to pause any further rollout of the product under the Olymviq mark for the time being.

The case will now be taken up on March 27.

Novo Nordisk was represented by Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Amit Sibal with Advocate Mamta Rani Jha and Hemant Singh from Inttl Advocare.

Dr Reddy's was represented by Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi.