The Delhi High Court on 5 August restrained Scott Edil Pharmacia Limited and its affiliate from manufacturing, selling or advertising pharmaceutical products under the marks \u201cNexporin\u201d and \u201cZetum\u201d, holding them deceptively similar to GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited’s registered trademarks \u201cNeosporin\u201d and \u201cCeftum\u201d. <\/p>\n
Justice Jyoti Singh passed the order while hearing an application filed by GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited (GSK) seeking an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Scott Edil Pharmacia. She observed: <\/p>\n
\u201cthe impugned mark NEXPORIN retains the structure, cadence and dominant element of Plaintiff’s mark NEOSPORIN i.e., PORIN and addition of NEX is not sufficient to distinguish the rival marks.\u201d <\/p>\n
GSK submitted that it is the registered proprietor of \u201cNeosporin\u201d, which has been used in India since 1969 for treating bacterial skin and eye infections, and \u201cCeftum\u201d, which has been used since 1991 as an antibiotic containing Cefuroxime Axetil. Both marks are registered under Class 5. <\/p>\n
The company also stated that Scott Edil had given an undertaking in 2010 not to manufacture or sell any product under the marks \u201cZeftum\u201d or \u201cBetanove-N\u201d, or any mark similar to \u201cCeftum\u201d and \u201cBetnovate\u201d. <\/p>\n
It further contended that it discovered in February 2026 that Scott Edil had filed a trademark application for \u201cNexporin\u201d and was selling products under that mark as well as \u201cZetum\u201d, containing active pharmaceutical ingredients identical to those used in GSK’s products. <\/p>\n
GSK sent a cease-and-desist notice in February 2026, which allegedly went unanswered. It later discovered that Scott Edil had applied to register \u201cZetum\u201d in April 2026. <\/p>\n
The Court held that GSK had made out a prima facie case for grant of an ex-parte injunction. With regard to \u201cZetum\u201d, the Bench observed: <\/p>\n
\u201cthe impugned mark ZETUM is prima facie structurally, visually and phonetically deceptively similar to Plaintiff’s registered trademark CEFTUM and the difference of the alphabets ‘C’ and ‘F’ is not enough to remove confusion amongst consumers with average intelligence and imperfect recollection\u201d. <\/p>\n
Accordingly, the High Court restrained Scott Edil Pharmacia Limited and its affiliate from manufacturing, selling or advertising pharmaceutical products under the marks \u201cNexporin\u201d and \u201cZetum\u201d, or any mark deceptively similar to \u201cNeosporin\u201d and \u201cCeftum\u201d, until the next hearing and directed it to take down all listings referencing the impugned marks within two weeks. <\/p>\n
The matter, along with connected applications, has been listed for further proceedings, with the injunction application made returnable on 3 December 2026. <\/p>\n
For GlaxoSmithKline: Advocates Tanya Varma, Vardaan Anand and Hansika Bajaj<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The Delhi High Court on 5 August restrained Scott Edil Pharmacia Limited and its affiliate from manufacturing, selling…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":101550,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[20784],"tags":[42740,42735,42744,42743,42733,42747,22181,42739,42730,20785,42732,42745,42734,42736,42746,42738,42741,42731,42742,20896,22182,42737],"class_list":["post-101549","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-gsk","tag-cadila-health-care","tag-ceftum","tag-cefuroxime-axetil","tag-class-05","tag-cscomm-816-2026","tag-deceptive-similarity","tag-delhi-high-court","tag-ex-parte-ad-interim-injunction","tag-glaxosmithkline-pharmaceuticals-limited","tag-gsk","tag-justice-jyoti-singh","tag-neomycin","tag-neosporin","tag-nexporin","tag-order-xxxix-rules-1-and-2-cpc","tag-passing-off","tag-pre-institution-mediation","tag-scott-edil-pharmacia-limited","tag-section-12a-commercial-courts-act","tag-trademark","tag-trademark-infringement","tag-zetum"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"","error":"Validation failed: Text character limit of 500 exceeded"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101549","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=101549"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101549\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/101550"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=101549"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=101549"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=101549"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}