Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories on Friday told the Delhi High Court that it will rename its diabetes drug from 'Olymviq' to 'Olymra' [Novo Nordisk Vs Dr Reddy's].
The statement was made before Justice Jyoti Singh during the hearing of a trademark infringement suit filed by Novo Nordisk over production of 'Olymviq' Semaglutide injections by Dr. Reddy's.
After Counsel for Dr. Reddy’s said that the company would adopt the alternative mark 'Olymra', Novo Nordisk's counsel indicated that the proposal was acceptable to it in principle.
However, the Court was told that the acceptance is subject to consequential steps including discontinuation of the 'Olymviq' mark and withdrawal of the pending trademark application by Dr. Reddy's.
The Court, however, did not formally record any agreement between the parties at this stage.
The dispute between Novo Nordisk and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories arose in the immediate aftermath of the expiry of Novo Nordisk’s patent over Semaglutide this month. The development has opened the Indian market to generic versions of the diabetes and weight-loss drug.
Shortly thereafter, Dr. Reddy’s launched its injectable Semaglutide product in India under the brand 'Obeda', positioning it as a more affordable alternative to Novo Nordisk’s widely known drugs Ozempic and Wegovy.
At the same time, the company also moved to adopt and use other marks, including 'Olymviq', which has now become the subject of the present dispute.
Novo Nordisk then approached the Delhi High Court alleging trademark infringement and passing off, contending that 'Olymviq' is phonetically similar to 'Ozempic'. It argued that in pharmaceutical products, even a possibility of confusion must be avoided in public interest, given the risks arising from prescription errors and human fallibility.
Pending further consideration, the Court today directed Dr. Reddy’s to not proceed with further sale or market expansion of its product under the 'Olymviq' mark.
The hearing then shifted to the treatment of existing stock of the drug already in circulation.
Dr. Reddy’s sought time to dispose of its inventory, submitting that the product is temperature-sensitive and cannot be easily relabelled or repackaged without risk. Novo Nordisk opposed any continued sale of the product, arguing that permitting disposal would allow circulation of an infringing product and dilute its brand.
The Court indicated that destruction of such stock would not be appropriate. The Bench observed that it would have to balance trademark rights with public interest, particularly given the nature of the drug.
At the same time, the Court expressed reservations about relabelling, noting that it was not equipped to assess the safety implications involved in the process.
With parties divided on whether the stock should be sold, relabelled or otherwise dealt with, the Court said it would consider the issue further in the future hearings.
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.