Introduction:

The Delhi High Court, by an interim order dated 24 December 2025, has delivered an important pronouncement on the thin but crucial line between descriptive use and trademark use, particularly in the pharmaceutical and cosmetic sector. The order was passed by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora in a commercial intellectual property suit instituted by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. against Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. and another, wherein the plaintiff alleged trademark infringement and passing off arising from the use of the word “SUN” on sunscreen products sold under the defendant’s “VENUSIA” brand. The Court, after a prima facie examination of the impugned labels, temporarily restrained Dr. Reddy’s from further manufacturing sunscreen products bearing labels prominently featuring the word “SUN” and directed maintenance of status quo until the next date of hearing. At the heart of the dispute lay the question whether the word “SUN” was being used merely descriptively in relation to sunscreen products or whether its placement, prominence, and visual emphasis transformed it into a trademark use capable of misleading consumers. The Court’s reasoning assumes significance not only for trademark jurisprudence but also for businesses operating in sectors where descriptive terms often overlap with registered and well-known marks, especially when such marks enjoy long-standing goodwill and statutory recognition.

Arguments of Both Sides:

On behalf of the plaintiff, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., it was argued that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademarks “SUN”, “SUN PHARMA”, and several other formative marks, which have been used continuously, extensively, and exclusively since as far back as 1978. The plaintiff emphasized that the mark “SUN” has acquired enormous goodwill and reputation over decades and has been judicially recognized as a well-known trademark by the Delhi High Court, apart from being included in the official list of well-known trademarks maintained by the Trade Marks Registry. It was further contended that the plaintiff operates across identical and allied pharmaceutical and healthcare markets, including the manufacture and sale of sunscreen products under the brand “SUNCROS”, which is directly derived from its core “SUN” mark. According to the plaintiff, in June 2025 it discovered that Dr. Reddy’s had launched sunscreen products under the “VENUSIA” brand, but with labels that prominently and repeatedly displayed the word “SUN” in a visually striking manner. Despite issuance of legal notices and subsequent correspondence, the defendant allegedly continued to use and even proposed modified labels where “SUN” remained dominant, thereby showing a lack of bona fide intent. The plaintiff argued that the impugned use was not descriptive, as the words “sunscreen” and “sunscreen gel” already appeared separately and clearly on the product packaging, leaving no necessity to highlight “SUN” so conspicuously. It was submitted that such use amounted to trademark infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, as well as passing off, since consumers were likely to form an initial impression of an association or connection with the plaintiff, especially given the identical nature of goods, overlapping trade channels, and the well-known status of the “SUN” mark.

Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd., on the other hand, contested the allegations by asserting that the word “SUN” was used purely in a descriptive sense, directly referring to protection from the sun, which is an essential and inherent characteristic of sunscreen products. The defendant argued that no monopoly can be claimed over common, descriptive words, particularly when they directly relate to the function or purpose of the product. It was contended that the primary brand on the product was “VENUSIA”, which clearly distinguished the defendant’s goods from those of the plaintiff, and that no reasonable consumer would be misled into believing an association with Sun Pharma merely because the word “SUN” appeared on the label. Dr. Reddy’s further submitted that it had expressed willingness to modify the labels to address the plaintiff’s concerns, demonstrating absence of dishonest intent. The defendant cautioned against granting an overly broad injunction at an interim stage, arguing that such restraint would cause significant commercial disruption and prejudice, especially when the use complained of was allegedly descriptive and bona fide.

Court’s Judgment:

After examining the rival submissions and perusing the impugned product labels, the Delhi High Court found prima facie merit in the plaintiff’s case and granted interim relief. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that the manner in which the word “SUN” was used on the defendant’s labels could not, at least at the prima facie stage, be characterized as descriptive. The Court noted that “SUN” appeared in the largest font, boldest lettering, and a contrasting colour, making it the most dominant and eye-catching element on the label, while the brand name “VENUSIA” appeared comparatively subdued. The Court emphasized that when a word is presented in such a prominent and stylized manner, it ceases to function merely as a description and instead assumes the role of a source identifier, i.e., a trademark. The Court further noted that the descriptive terms “sunscreen” and “sunscreen gel” were already present separately and clearly on the packaging, thereby undermining the defendant’s argument that the prominent use of “SUN” was necessary for descriptive purposes. Taking into account the plaintiff’s well-established rights in the “SUN” mark, its judicial recognition as a well-known trademark, and its existing presence in the sunscreen market, the Court held that the impugned use was likely to create confusion or at least an initial interest association in the minds of consumers. The Court observed that such confusion was particularly probable given the identical nature of the goods and the shared trade channels. On this basis, the Court concluded that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the plaintiff and that irreparable harm would be caused if the defendant were allowed to continue manufacturing products under the disputed labels. Consequently, the Court directed Dr. Reddy’s to maintain status quo and restrained it from further manufacturing sunscreen products bearing the impugned labels until further orders, while clarifying that the findings were prima facie in nature and the matter would be taken up for further consideration on 23 January 2026.