Public interest vs. trademark violation: How Delhi HC balanced rights to protect Dr. Reddy's trademark infringing diabetes drugs

The Delhi High Court declined to order destruction of diabetes drugs sold by Dr Reddy’s Laboratories under the mark 'OLYMVIQ' despite finding a case of trademark infringement against it [Novo Nordisk Vs Dr Reddy's].

Justice Jyoti Singh permitted Dr Reddy’s to sell its existing stock of semaglutide injections for a period of 30 days and directed that any remaining stock thereafter be donated to a government hospital.

"In my view, it will be in public interest to permit the sale of the existing stock instead of directing its destruction,” the Court said.

The order came on a trademark infringement suit filed by Novo Nordisk against Dr Reddy’s Laboratories.

The Court noted that the drug is used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus, is a Schedule H prescription drug, and that its quality was not in dispute.

Hence, trademark enforcement needs to be balanced with considerations of public health, the judge said.

The dispute arose after Novo Nordisk alleged that Dr Reddy’s mark 'Olymviq' was deceptively similar to its diabetes drug 'Ozempic'.

On March 25, the Court orally observed that the two marks were phonetically similar and that in pharmaceutical products, even a threshold of confusion would not be acceptable. It directed Dr Reddy’s to halt further sale or market expansion under the 'Olymviq' mark.

At a subsequent hearing on March 27, Dr Reddy’s informed the Court that it would change the mark and proposed 'Olymra' as an alternative.

Novo Nordisk indicated that it had no objection in principle, subject to discontinuation of 'Olymviq' and withdrawal of pending trademark applications.

The issue of existing stock then became the point of dispute. Dr Reddy’s sought time to exhaust its inventory on the ground that the drug is temperature-sensitive and cannot be easily relabelled. Novo Nordisk opposed continued sale, arguing that it would allow circulation of an infringing product.

The Court indicated that destruction may not be appropriate and that it would have to balance trademark rights with public interest, particularly given the nature of the drug. It also expressed reservations about relabelling due to safety concerns.

In its final order of March 30, the Court accepted Dr Reddy’s undertaking to discontinue 'Olymviq', withdraw trademark applications and to make transition to 'Olymra'.

On the existing stock, it permitted sale for 30 days, with a direction that any remaining stock be donated to a government hospital in the presence of Novo Nordisk’s authorised representative.

The Court also awarded Novo Nordisk 30 percent of the costs claimed in its bill of costs (excluding court fees).

Novo Nordisk was represented by Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Amit Sibal with advocates Hemant Singh, Mamta Jha, Rishabh Paliwal, Shreyansh Gupta, Sanchit Sharma, Saksham Dhingra, Smriti Nair, Ankit Handa and Amit Bhandari from Inttl Advocare.

Dr. Reddy's was represented by Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi with advocates Ranjan Narula, Shakti Priyan Nair, Parth Bajaj, Krisna Gambhir, Shreya Sethi and Riya Kumar.

[Read Judgment]