Stricter standard of phonetic similarity and holistic comparison applies to pharmaceutical trademarks to prevent public health hazards.

The Appellant, a leading pharmaceutical company, coined and adopted the trademark ‘RACIRAFT’ in January 2022 for an oral suspension (antacid) containing Sodium Alginate.

The mark was registered in Class 05.

In February 2025, the Appellant discovered the Respondent using the mark ‘ESIRAFT’ for identical medicinal preparations.

The Appellant filed a commercial suit for infringement and passing off.

On April 7, 2025, a Single Judge initially granted ad-interim relief.

However, on December 23, 2025, the same court vacated the injunction, holding that the marks were not deceptively similar as the suffix ‘RAFT’ is generic in the trade and the prefixes ‘RACI’ and ‘ESI’ were distinct.

The Appellant challenged this vacatur, arguing that pharmaceutical marks require a more stringent test of similarity.

The Court applied the principles from Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., which established that a lesser quantum of proof of confusing similarity is required for medicinal preparations because confusion can be life-threatening.

It further relied on the "Anti-Dissection Rule" from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Co. v. Geoffrey Manners Co. Pvt. Ltd., stipulating that trademarks must be compared as a whole rather than being dissected into constituent parts.

The court also referenced Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd., noting that while appellate interference in discretionary orders is limited, it is warranted if the lower court's view is perverse or ignores settled legal principles.

The Court found the Single Judge's order flawed for dissecting the marks "syllable by syllable" (comparing 'RACI' vs 'ESI') instead of evaluating the overall impression.

While acknowledging that ‘RAFT’ indicates the "raft-forming" property of the drug’s molecule, the Court held that even generic components must be factored into the holistic phonetic comparison.

Applying the Cadila standard, the Court reasoned that in a multilingual society like India, the phonetic resonance of ‘RACIRAFT’ and ‘ESIRAFT’ is strikingly similar, creating a high "possibility of confusion".

It emphasized that hurried pronunciation or imperfect recollection by a consumer or pharmacist could lead to dispensing the wrong medicine, which is a risk the law must prevent.

The Court rejected the Respondent’s argument that different packaging/color schemes negated similarity, ruling that phonetic similarity alone suffices for an injunction in pharmaceutical cases.

It held that ‘ESIRAFT’ is deceptively similar to ‘RACIRAFT’ and that the Single Judge failed to apply the mandatory stringent test for pharmaceutical products.

Consequently, the Respondent is restrained from using the impugned mark, and the initial protection granted to the Appellant's registered trademark is restored.