DAPLO vs DAPLOGIN: Delhi High Court Cancels DAPLOGIN Trademark Registration

The Delhi High Court has cancelled the registration of the trademark DAPLOGIN, holding it to be deceptively similar to the earlier registered trademark DAPLO in relation to pharmaceutical products.

Case Details

• Case: Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited v. M/s Razenta Pharmaceuticals Private Limited & Anr.
• Court: Delhi High Court
• Case No.: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 122/2025
• Decision Date: 17 August 2026
• Earlier Mark: DAPLO
• Impugned Mark: DAPLOGIN
• Class: Class 5

Background of the Dispute

Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited claimed rights in the trademark DAPLO, which was used for pharmaceutical products containing Dapagliflozin and intended for the treatment of Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus.

Razenta Pharmaceuticals Private Limited obtained registration for the trademark DAPLOGIN in Class 5. The application for DAPLOGIN was filed on 14 November 2021.

Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories challenged the registration before the Delhi High Court, contending that DAPLOGIN was deceptively similar to its registered trademark DAPLO.

Contentions Before the Court

The petitioner argued that the mark DAPLO was wholly incorporated into DAPLOGIN and that merely adding the suffix “GIN” could not sufficiently distinguish the competing marks.

It was further submitted that both marks were used for pharmaceutical products containing the same active pharmaceutical ingredient, Dapagliflozin, and were associated with the treatment of Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus.

The respondent, on the other hand, argued that DAPLOGIN had been independently coined from the name of the active pharmaceutical ingredient Dapagliflozin and that similar elements were commonly used in pharmaceutical trademarks.

Delhi High Court's Findings

The Court found that DAPLOGIN was deceptively similar to DAPLO.

The Court noted that all five letters of the earlier mark DAPLO were incorporated into the later mark DAPLOGIN. The addition of the suffix “GIN” was not sufficient to eliminate the overall similarity between the marks.

The Court also considered the visual and phonetic similarity between the competing marks and the fact that both related to pharmaceutical products containing the same active pharmaceutical ingredient.

DAPLO Was Not Held to Be Publici Juris

The Court rejected the contention that DAPLO was common to the trade merely because it was alleged to have been derived from Dapagliflozin.

The Court considered DAPLO as a whole and found that it was not the generic name, abbreviation, prefix or suffix of Dapagliflozin. Therefore, the mark could not be treated as publici juris merely on the basis of the alleged derivation from the API.

Importance of Pharmaceutical Trademark Similarity

The Court applied the stricter approach applicable to pharmaceutical trademarks. In pharmaceutical matters, even a possibility of confusion requires careful consideration because confusion between medicines may have serious consequences.

The Court also observed that the existence of other similar marks on the Trade Marks Register, without evidence of substantial actual use, was insufficient to establish that the mark was common to the trade.

Final Order

The Delhi High Court allowed the cancellation petition and directed the cancellation of Trade Mark Registration No. 5208898 for DAPLOGIN.

The Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to rectify the Register within six weeks from the date of the judgment.

Key Takeaway

The DAPLO vs DAPLOGIN decision reinforces that merely adding a suffix to an earlier distinctive pharmaceutical trademark may not avoid deceptive similarity, particularly where the later mark wholly incorporates the earlier mark and the competing products share the same active pharmaceutical ingredient and therapeutic purpose.

The decision also highlights that a claim that a trademark is “common to the trade” must be supported by evidence of actual and substantial market use; mere presence of similar registrations on the Trade Marks Register is not sufficient.