In a packed courtroom at the Bombay High Court, arguments over a few syllables and colours stretched well into the afternoon. By the end of it, the court made it clear: not every similarity in medicine branding amounts to infringement. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited walked away without the interim protection it had sought against rival Meghmani Lifesciences Limited.
Background
Sun Pharma approached the court claiming that Meghmani’s heartburn syrup sold under the name “EsiRaft” infringed its registered trademark “RACIRAFT.” Both products treat the same ailment-heartburn and indigestion-and even use the same key ingredients that create a foam-like barrier in the stomach.
Read also:- Patna High Court Sets Aside Suicide Abetment Conviction, Says Marriage Discord Alone
Sun argued that “RACIRAFT,” launched in 2022, had built market goodwill and that “EsiRaft” was deceptively close, especially since both brands used the word “RAFT” and a similar two-colour presentation. Meghmani, however, countered that “RAFT” is commonly used in such medicines to describe the foaming action and cannot belong to one company alone.
Court’s Observations
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh carefully walked through how trademark disputes are judged, reminding that marks must be seen as a whole and from the eyes-and ears-of an average buyer.
“The bench observed, ‘The opening syllables of the two competing marks are completely different and are rarely mispronounced.’” The court noted that “RACIRAFT” begins with a hard “R” sound, while “EsiRaft” starts with a vowel sound, usually spoken as “easy.” Even hurried speech, the judge felt, would not blur this difference.
On visuals too, the court was unconvinced. While both brands used two colours, this practice appeared common across similar digestive medicines. Colour alone, without closer resemblance in structure or sound, could not tip the balance.
Read also:- Madhya Pradesh High Court Steps In, Scraps Railway-Constituted Arbitral Tribunal in Cable
Importantly, the court accepted Meghmani’s explanation that “ESI” referred to “Esophageal Symptom Index” or “Enhanced System Improvement,” terms connected to patient care. That explanation, the judge said, was reasonable for a medicinal product.
Decision
After weighing all factors, the court held that Sun Pharma had failed to establish even a prima facie case of trademark infringement or passing off. The interim injunction granted earlier was vacated, and Meghmani was allowed to continue selling its product under the name “EsiRaft.”
The interim application was dismissed, bringing the trademark skirmish-at least for now-to a close before the Bombay High Court.
Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited vs Meghmani Lifesciences Limited & Anr.
Case No.: Interim Application (L) No. 9484 of 2025 in Commercial IP (L) No. 353 of 2025
Case Type: Trademark Infringement and Passing Off (Commercial IP)
Decision Date: 23 December 2025
