Bombay HC restrains sale of ‘CEFDON’ cough syrup, cites deceptive similarity with ‘CEDON’

The Bombay High Court has permanently restrained RB Remedies Pvt. Ltd. and Origin Formulations Pvt. Ltd. from manufacturing or selling cough syrup under the brand name ‘CEFDON’, ruling that it is deceptively similar to ‘CEDON’, a mark used by Blue Cross Laboratories. The court also directed the companies to pay ₹10 lakh as cost within eight weeks. The order was passed by Justice Arif S. Doctor on December 16. 

The dispute dates back to 2014 when Blue Cross, which has been using the trademark ‘CEDON’ for its dry cough syrup since 2004 and holds a valid registration dating back to 1996, discovered that RB Remedies was marketing a cough syrup under the name ‘CEFDON’. A cease-and-desist notice was issued in August 2014, but the rival company continued using the mark. 

Appearing for Blue Cross, advocate Vinod Bhagat, argued that the adoption of the mark was deliberate and dishonest. He told the court, “The defendants’ use of the impugned mark ‘CEFDON’ is clearly mala fide and dishonest. They are attempting to encash on goodwill and reputation.” 

Mr. Bhagat pointed out that the entire registered trademark ‘CEDON’ was embedded in the rival mark and relied on Supreme Court precedent in K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal & Co. to stress that deceptive similarity must be judged by overall impression, including phonetic resemblance. 

The court noted that the defendants failed to appear or contest the proceedings despite being served. After reviewing evidence, including sales invoices and turnover figures showing growth from ₹13.93 crore in 2014–15 to ₹25.65 crore in 2024–25, Justice Doctor observed, “There can be no manner of doubt that the registered trademark ‘CEDON’ has been entirely subsumed in the impugned mark ‘CEFDON’. Equally, there can be no doubt that there is both visual and phonetic similarity. The likelihood of confusion and deception is evident.” 

The court further noted, “This likelihood of confusion and the evident deception are more than likely to cause consumers to purchase the defendant’s product and thereby cause loss to the plaintiff.” 

Calling the adoption of the mark “entirely dishonest and actuated by bad faith,” the judge added, “There is nothing on record to even remotely suggest that the adoption of the impugned mark ‘CEFDON’ by the Defendants was honest or bona fide.” 

On awarding costs, Justice Doctor emphasised deterrence, “The Defendants’ conduct was clearly dishonest. The products involved were pharmaceutical preparations, where public health and safety considerations were involved, which warrants a stricter award of costs, both to compensate the Plaintiff and to deter similar conduct by others.” 

The court invoked Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, to award realistic costs. It directed, “The Defendants shall each pay a sum of ₹5 lakh as costs within a period of 8 weeks from today.” 

Failure to pay within eight weeks will attract interest at 8% per annum, the order said.