BEVATAS vs BEVETEX: Delhi High Court on Pharmaceutical Trademark Similarity
Delhi High Court Division Bench examines deceptive similarity, likelihood of confusion, publici juris elements and the application of pharmaceutical trademark principles.
Case at a Glance
Introduction
The Delhi High Court Division Bench, in its judgment dated 29 May 2026, considered an important dispute concerning the pharmaceutical trademarks BEVATAS and BEVETEX.
The dispute involved allegations of trademark infringement and deceptive similarity in relation to pharmaceutical products used in the treatment of cancer.
The Court examined the competing marks along with the nature, composition, therapeutic indications, mode of administration and the relevant class of consumers.
Background of the Dispute
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited claimed rights in the registered trademark BEVETEX.
Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited adopted and used the trademark BEVATAS for a pharmaceutical product containing Bevacizumab.
Sun Pharma alleged that BEVATAS was deceptively similar to BEVETEX and infringed its registered trademark. Intas disputed the allegation and maintained that the competing marks were sufficiently different when considered as a whole and in their relevant commercial context.
The Two Marks
Procedural History
BEVATAS
Intas adopted/launched the mark BEVATAS for its pharmaceutical product.
Opposition
Sun Pharma filed opposition to the BEVATAS trademark application.
Infringement Proceedings
Sun Pharma instituted proceedings concerning the use of BEVATAS.
Interim Stage
The Trial Court declined to grant an interim injunction.
Appellate Proceedings
The interim decision was upheld by the Delhi High Court.
Supreme Court
The SLP arising from the interim proceedings was dismissed.
Single Judge Judgment
The Single Judge passed a final judgment in favour of Sun Pharma and granted a permanent injunction against the use of BEVATAS.
Division Bench Judgment
The Division Bench allowed Intas' appeal and set aside the impugned judgment.
Issue Before the Division Bench
Whether the use of the trademark BEVATAS by Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited amounted to infringement of Sun Pharma's registered trademark BEVETEX on the ground of deceptive similarity and likelihood of confusion?
What Did the Court Examine?
Visual Similarity
Whether the competing marks created a similar visual impression.
Phonetic Similarity
Whether the marks sounded similar when pronounced.
Structural Similarity
Whether the overall structure of the competing marks was similar.
Nature of Drugs
Composition, therapeutic indications and characteristics of the products.
Mode of Administration
The manner in which the medicines were prescribed and administered.
Likelihood of Confusion
Whether sufficient evidence established a likelihood of confusion.
Difference Between the Pharmaceutical Products
BEVETEX
- Active ingredient: Paclitaxel
- Anti-cancer pharmaceutical product
- Different therapeutic indications
BEVATAS
- Active ingredient: Bevacizumab
- Anti-cancer pharmaceutical product
- Different therapeutic indications
Court's Finding on Similarity
The Division Bench found that the rival marks, when considered as a whole, were not sufficiently similar visually, structurally or phonetically so as to establish trademark infringement.
“BEV” and “BEVA” — Publici Juris
An important aspect of the judgment concerned the common elements “BEV” and “BEVA”.
The Division Bench considered the argument that these elements were associated with pharmaceutical products containing Bevacizumab.
The Court treated “BEV” and “BEVA” as publici juris in the relevant context of anti-cancer drugs containing Bevacizumab.
Therefore, the assessment of similarity could not be based merely on the presence of these common elements. The distinctive features and the overall impression created by the competing marks were required to be considered.
Likelihood of Confusion
The Court also examined whether Sun Pharma had established a likelihood of confusion among the relevant class of persons.
The relevant circumstances included the involvement of medical professionals, including oncologists, pharmacists and trained medical personnel, as well as the circumstances in which the medicines were prescribed and administered.
The Division Bench found that the evidence placed on record was not sufficient to establish the requisite likelihood of confusion.
Application of the Cadila Principles
Pharmaceutical trademark disputes require particular caution because confusion between medicines may have serious consequences.
The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. remain an important reference point in pharmaceutical trademark disputes.
The BEVATAS–BEVETEX judgment demonstrates that the application of these principles remains dependent upon the facts and evidence of each individual case. The Court examined the marks together with the nature of the medicines, their therapeutic characteristics, prescribing practices and the relevant consumer context.
Appeal Allowed
The Division Bench allowed the appeal filed by Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited and set aside the impugned judgment of the Single Judge.
The Court held that the use of BEVATAS did not amount to infringement of the registered trademark BEVETEX on the facts of the case.
Consequently, the suit was dismissed.
Key Legal Takeaways
Pharmaceutical trademarks must be assessed in their complete commercial and therapeutic context.
A common prefix or element does not automatically establish deceptive similarity.
The distinctiveness of a common pharmaceutical element is relevant while determining the scope of trademark protection.
Composition, therapeutic indications, mode of administration and prescribing practices may be relevant to likelihood of confusion.
The relevant consumer and the actual prescribing and purchasing environment may play an important role.
Allegations of likelihood of confusion should be supported by appropriate evidence.
Why This Judgment Matters
The BEVATAS–BEVETEX dispute is noteworthy because the litigation passed through different stages where the assessment of the competing marks evolved from the interim stage to the final trial judgment and thereafter to appellate scrutiny.
The Division Bench's decision provides a useful illustration of the importance of evidence and contextual analysis in pharmaceutical trademark litigation.
Case Summary
| Case | Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited |
|---|---|
| Appeal | RFA(OS)(COMM) 10/2026 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi |
| Judgment Date | 29 May 2026 |
| Impugned Judgment | 28 March 2026 |
| Marks | BEVATAS vs BEVETEX |
| Subject | Trademark Infringement / Deceptive Similarity |
| Result | Appeal Allowed; Impugned Judgment Set Aside |