Trademark dispute: HP High court allows Leeford to keep using ‘Glucose-D’, rejects Zydus’ claim
Photo used for indicative purpose only..source: Internet
Shimla, Nov 17,
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has refused to grant Zydus Wellness any interim injunction against Leeford Healthcare in a high-profile trademark dispute involving the well-known energy drink brand Glucon-D. Justice Sandeep Sharma, while deciding Zydus’ application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, held that the company failed to establish a prima facie case for restraining Leeford from selling its Rock-On Glucose-D and Rock-On Glucose-C products. The Court also noted that the marks in question contain descriptive and generic elements which cannot be monopolized by any one manufacturer.
The Bench observed that Zydus itself had accepted disclaimers during trademark registration, including disclaimers over the letter “D” and over descriptive components of the marks, and had earlier admitted before the Registrar that expressions such as gluco, glucose, and glucose-D were common to the trade. Referring to these recorded admissions, the Court held that Zydus could not take a contradictory stand before the High Court by now asserting exclusivity over the same descriptive elements.
The order reflects a detailed comparison of the rival marks and packaging. The Court noted that Leeford’s products prominently feature its own registered mark “Rock-On”, along with distinct trade dress, colour combinations, and overall get-up. Since both sides manufacture glucose-based energy powders containing vitamins D and C, the Bench held that the words glucose, D, and C merely indicate the characteristics of the goods and therefore fall within statutory protections for descriptive use under Sections 30(1), 30(2)(a), and 35 of the Trade Marks Act.
The Court also recorded that the defendants have been using the terms Glucose-D and Glucose-C for approximately 17 years and that even after receiving a cease-and-desist notice in April 2023, Zydus waited over 16 months before approaching the Court. Such delay, the Bench held, diluted the urgency essential for interim relief. Justice Sharma further noted that the packaging of the plaintiff had undergone changes over the years, weakening the argument that consumers associated any single trade dress exclusively with Zydus.
Citing its earlier jurisprudence and Supreme Court rulings, the High Court concluded that descriptive expressions and generic trade terms that are common to an entire product category cannot be monopolized merely because a brand enjoys dominant market share or longstanding use. Since Zydus could not show either deceptive similarity in essential features or any imminent threat warranting ad-interim protection, the plea for injunction was rejected.
The order underscores the continuing judicial approach that trademark protection cannot override public entitlement to use generic descriptors, particularly in fast-moving consumer goods where product names reflect ingredients or characteristics. The suit will proceed on merits, but for the time being, Leeford is free to continue manufacturing and marketing its Rock-On Glucose-D and Glucose-C products in the market.
About the Author
The HimachalScape Bureau comprises seasoned journalists from Himachal Pradesh with over 25 years of experience in leading media conglomerates such as The Times of India and United News of India. Known for their in-depth regional insights, the team brings credible, research-driven, and balanced reportage on Himachal’s socio-political and developmental landscape.
