Bombay High Court Rejects Interim Injunction Sought by Sun Pharma Against “RACIRAFT” Rival “EsiRaft”

A single bench of Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh passed the order on December 23, 2025, while dismissing an interim injunction plea filed by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited in its trademark infringement and passing off suit. The court also vacated an earlier ex-parte ad-interim injunction that had restrained Meghmani Lifesciences from using the disputed mark.

Applying settled principles, the court found no likelihood of confusion between the rival marks.

The court observed, “Applying the well settled principles which governs the field while assessing the rival marks as regards the anti-dissection rule, view point of an average consumer with imperfect recollection, holistic comparison, the likelihood of confusion etc., in my view, the competing marks are prima facie visually and phonetically dissimilar and will not create any confusion in the minds of the consumers.”

Sun Pharma told the Court that it adopted the trademark “RACIRAFT” in January 2022 for an oral syrup used to treat heartburn and indigestion. It relied on sales figures to claim goodwill and argued that Meghmani Lifesciences' use of “EsiRaft” amounted to infringement, especially since both products treated the same ailments and used similar colour combinations on their packaging.

Meghmani Lifesciences opposed the plea, contending that the word “RAFT” is generic and commonly used in the pharmaceutical trade. It argued that no exclusivity could be claimed over the term and that the prefixes “RACI” and “ESI” were visually and phonetically distinct. The company also submitted that its adoption of the mark was bona fide, explaining that “ESI” referred to “Enhanced System Improvement” and “Esophageal Symptom Index”.

After examining the material on record, the court reiterated that trademarks must be compared as a whole. While both marks shared the word “RAFT”, the court held that the element was descriptive of the product's characteristics and could not, by itself, establish deceptive similarity.

“The well settled principles for assessing the deceptive similarity lays emphasis on visual appearance as well as the phonetic similarity i.e. that the marks have to be judged by the eye as well as the ear,” the Court said.

On an overall comparison, the Court held that “EsiRaft” was not visually, structurally or phonetically similar to “RACIRAFT”. It noted that the opening syllables were entirely different and that there was no possibility of confusion in pronunciation. The court also observed that the use of two-colour combinations was common in the trade and was insufficient, by itself, to establish infringement.

On the issue of passing off, the court held that the absence of visual or phonetic similarity took the case outside the scope of passing off. It found no material to show that Meghmani Lifesciences had misrepresented its product as that of Sun Pharma.

“The get up of the marks itself is different as the marks are depicted in different manner and the overall visual appearance of the rival products is dissimilar,” the Court said.

Holding that Sun Pharma had failed to make out a prima facie case of trademark infringement or passing off and held that Meghmani Lifesciences could not be restrained from using the “EsiRaft” mark.

Accordingly, the court dismissed Sun Pharma's interim injunction plea.

Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v. Meghmani Lifesciences Limited and Another

Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 4

Case Number: IA (L) No. 9484/2025 in Commercial IP (L) No. 353/2025

For Plaintiff: Advocates Hiren Kamod, Shetank Tripathi, Radhika Mehta, Vidit Desai, Nipun Krishnaraj and Prem Khullar instructed by ANM Global

For Defendants: Advocates Ashutosh Kane, Vedangi Soman and Avani Panchabhai instructed by W.S. Kane & Co.

Click Here To Read/Download Order