Bombay HC grants PANTOCID makers relief in Trademark Case against PANTOZED

• Kashish Kumar
• 06 Apr 2026
• 37 Views

The Bombay High Court (HC) has restrained a Kenyan pharmaceutical company and its Indian contract manufacturer to prevent them from using the name “PANTOZED” for their anti-acidity medication. The court determined that the use of this mark likely infringes on Sun Pharma’s well-known trademark “PANTOCID” [Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v Zawadi Healthcare Ltd & Anr]. 

Justice Sharmila Deshmukh allowed Sun Pharma Laboratories’s interim application for the restraining order in a trademark infringement lawsuit filed against Zawadi Healthcare Ltd (Kenya) and its Indian manufacturer. This case arose over the export of “PANTOZED-40” tablets from India to Kenya.

The Bombay HC held, "The Plaintiff has succeeded in making out a prima facie case for infringement of trade mark by use of the deceptively similar mark 'PANTOZED.' ...  The Defendants have no registration in India and even its Kenyan registration is of recent origin. The Plaintiffs (Sun Pharma) have thus made out prima facie case for grant of injunction against infringement of its registered trade mark.”

Phonetic Similarity and Likelihood of Confusion

The Court observed that both "PANTOCID" and "PANTOZED/PANTOZED-40" are based on the same active pharmaceutical ingredient ‘pantoprazole’ and are used to treat acid-related diseases. Although both marks share the common prefix "PANTO," the Court focused on the suffixes "CID" and "ZED." 

It found these suffixes to be phonetically similar when the marks are spoken. As a result, they create a strong likelihood of confusion among consumers. HC observed, “When the marks are pronounced as a whole, it is likely that both the marks would sound similar as ZED is phonetically similar to CID. There is strong likelihood of the Defendant’s drug being handed over when asked for the Plaintiff’s product.”

The court stressed that when it comes to medicinal products, even a slight confusion’s possibility must be avoided. It relied on the Cadila Healthcare ruling of the Supreme Court. It was argued by Zawadi that “PANTO” comes from the generic molecule and is common to trade. It pointed to numerous third‑party marks with “PANTO” and “CID”. Additionally, it relied on its Kenyan registration for “PANTOZED”. 

Distinctiveness of “PANTOCID” Upheld

Nevertheless, the Bombay HC concluded that Sun's 1998 registered mark "PANTOCID" is a distinctive combination of "PANTO" (from the molecule) and "CID" (referring to the ailment, acid). Additionally, it mentioned that merely showing several similar trademarks on the register without any proof that they are widely used in the market does not prove the mark is common in the trade. 

The Court clarified that trademark infringement can occur even when the goods in question are only exported. It ruled that applying a trademark in India to goods intended for export and subsequent export of those goods under that mark, constitutes 'use' for the purposes of trademark infringement under Sections 29(6) and 56 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The judgement outlines, “The statutory provisions would indicate that the activity of Defendant No 2 of manufacturing the impugned product with the impugned mark carried out in India and exporting the impugned products from India is liable for an infringement action as such use constitutes use of the trademark.”

However, the judge did not find merit in Sun Pharma's claim that the defendants had "passed off" their goods as those of Pantocid. It was noted by the HC that there was no evidence to prove that the “PANTOZED” products were available in India nor that Zawadi had misrepresented its goods as those of Sun Pharma in a manner that would damage its goodwill in the country. 

The judge stated, “There is no material brought to the notice of the Court that the Defendant’s products are available in India so as to damage the Plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation which is shown in India. I am thus not inclined to grant interim relief as against passing off.”

Legal Representatives

Advocates Anees Patel, Vaibhav Keni, Neha Iyer, Vishwajeet Jadhav and Mohd. Affan, briefed by Legasis Partners, represented Sun Pharma in the case. Advocates Atmaram Patade, Pranav Manjrekar, Shraddha Patil, Atharva Kudtarkar and Rahul Dubey represented Zawadi Healthcare.

Source: Bar and Bench