Bombay High Court Bars Sale of Cough Syrup Under 'CEFDON' Mark, Citing Similarity With 'CEDON'

The Bombay High Court has permanently barred an Ahmedabad-based drug company from selling a cough syrup under the name “CEFDON”, ruling that it is too similar to an existing and well-known brand, “CEDON.”

In a judgment delivered on December 16, 2025, Justice Arif S Doctor ruled in favour of Blue Cross Laboratories Private Limited, which owns the registered trademark “CEDON.” The court held that the continued sale of cough syrup under the name “CEFDON” by RB Remedies Private Limited violated Blue Cross's trademark rights and amounted to passing off.

Blue Cross told the court that it has been selling its dry cough syrup under the brand “CEDON” since 2004, and that the trademark itself has been registered since 1996. The company said it discovered in August 2014 that a similar cough syrup using the name “CEFDON” had entered the market.

Despite issuing a cease-and-desist notice, RB Remedies continued to market the product

To support its case, Blue Cross placed on record sales invoices, turnover figures and Chartered Accountant certificates showing long and continuous use of the “CEDON” brand.

After examining both names, the court found that the registered mark “CEDON” was entirely absorbed into “CEFDON”, making the two visually and phonetically similar. Applying the standard of an average consumer with imperfect recollection, the court said there was a real risk of confusion, especially because both products were cough syrups.

"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,” the Court said.

The court also accepted Blue Cross's argument that it had built substantial goodwill and reputation in the “CEDON” mark over decades. It noted that there was nothing on record to show that the adoption of the “CEFDON” name was honest or bona fide.

On the issue of costs, the court said that under the Commercial Courts Act, successful parties are normally entitled to costs, and the conduct of the parties is relevant. It noted that RB Remedies' failure to contest the case forced Blue Cross to incur unnecessary legal expenses, justifying compensatory costs.

As a result, the High Court permanently restrained RB Remedies from using the “CEFDON” mark or passing off its products as those of Blue Cross Laboratories. It also imposed costs of Rs 5 lakh each on the company and the cough syrup manufacturer.