Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Zydus Interim Relief In 'Glucon-D v Glucose-D' Trademark Case
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has recently refused to grant interim relief to Zydus Wellness Products Ltd., which had sought to restrain Leeford Healthcare Ltd. from using the marks “Glucose-D” and “Glucose-C” for its glucose-based products. A single bench of Justice Sandeep Sharma, in an order dated November 11, 2025, held that a company cannot claim exclusive rights over...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has recently refused to grant interim relief to Zydus Wellness Products Ltd., which had sought to restrain Leeford Healthcare Ltd. from using the marks “Glucose-D” and “Glucose-C” for its glucose-based products.
A single bench of Justice Sandeep Sharma, in an order dated November 11, 2025, held that a company cannot claim exclusive rights over descriptive trade terms such as “glucose.”
Zydus, which owns the registered trademarks “Glucon-D” and “Glucon-C,” argued that Leeford's use of similar names amounted to trademark infringement. The company claimed decades of use and strong goodwill for its Glucon range and asked the Court to stop Leeford from marketing its products under the disputed names during the suit.
Leeford opposed the application, stating that the expressions “Glucose-D” and “Glucose-C” were generic and descriptive in nature and commonly used in the trade.
The Court noted that although Zydus holds valid trademark registrations, the Trademark Registry had issued disclaimers stating that the company could not claim exclusive rights over the words “Gluco” or “Glucose.”
Justice Sharma observed that Leeford's packaging clearly displayed its “Rock On” brand, and any similarity between the two products arose mainly from the use of the descriptive term “glucose.” He ruled that no company can monopolize descriptive trade terms that describe the nature of a product.
“Since the defendant's product contains both 'glucose' and 'Vitamin D' and seems to be an honest descriptive use of the main ingredient of the product, it cannot be said to infringe the registered trademark of the plaintiff. The term 'glucose' being the key ingredient of the product serves merely as a descriptive indication of its nature and composition.”, the Court said.
The court explained that deceptive similarity must be judged based on the overall visual, phonetic, structural, and conceptual features of the marks to determine whether an average consumer would be confused. It found no likelihood of confusion between the two brands.
Relying on the judgment in Pernod Ricard India Pvt Ltd & Anr v Karanveer Singh Chhabra, the court ruled that interim relief can only be granted upon establishing a strong prima facie case, likelihood of confusion, balance of convenience and irreparable harm and found that Zydus had not satisfied these requirements at this stage.
Accordingly, the High Court refused to grant an injunction and dismissed Zydus's interim application.
Case Title: Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. v. Leeford Healthcare Ltd.
Case Number: OMP No. 885 of 2024
For the Plaintiff: Advocates Guru Natraj, Shradha Karol and Vaibhav Singh Chauhan
For the Defendant: Advocates Neeraj K Grover and Yash Sharma