Case Name: Cipla Ltd. v. M K Pharmaceutical 

Citation: 2008 (36) PTC 166 (DEL) 

Court: Delhi High Court 

Corum: Honorable Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra 

Abstract 

This case commentary on Cipla Ltd. v. M K Pharmaceutical, focusses on the interpretation of trade dress, and what amounts to passing off of. It mainly discusses the issues and conflicts behind the usage of similar colour and shape for the tablets.

Introduction 

Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas 

So the maxim says, while using your own property, it should not harm others on the other hand. You have the right to make your own designs, but at the same time, you have to make sure that you are not harming the rights of others. This principle serves as an important legal base for any law, since it connects the rights, duties and obligations. In the case of Cipla Ltd. v. MK Pharmaceutical, there was a conflict between the trade dress of the parties. Trade dress can basically be defined as the appearance or packaging of a product, which includes the shape, size, or colour scheme that helps people distinguish the products from others. 

Facts of the case

The plaintiff company Cipla was having a product ‘Norfloxacin’ under the trade mark name ‘NORFLOX-400’, having oval shape and orange colour. It was packaged in a specific blister pack, since 1986. The defendant company M K Pharmaceutical started making the same product under the name ‘PACIMOX-400’, which was also oval shaped and orange coloured and a similar blister packing. Even though the two products were not similar descriptively, they looked similar. So, as a result, Cipla filed for a permanent injunction. 

Issues involved 

Can companies claim exclusive rights over certain colour, shape and looks of a product? 

Whether the similarities cause confusion among the consumers? 

Reasoning 

Here in the case of Cipla Ltd. v. M K Pharmaceutical, even though there were similarities in the looks of the plaintiff’s and defendant’s products, there were no similarities in the names. The court held that distinctiveness should only be there in the names , symbols or emblems, mere similarities in the colour, shape or size cannot be taken into account. If the court would have granted injunction, it would have create a monopoly in the sector causing harm as per the maxim  ‘Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas’, no one should be harmed in the name or profit of another. The plaintiff used the name ‘NORFLOX-400’ and the defendant used the name ‘PACIMOX-400’, which are entirely different, so the court held that, as there is differences in the names, a prudent man in the society will not be misled. The court also held that even if the plaintiff’s and defendant’s pills have the same colours, it won’t amount to passing off, since mere similarity of colour cannot be accepted as a passing off.

Critique

The ruling of the court prevents ‘trade mark bullying’, which happens when large corporates or companies become dominant and small scale sectors are suppressed under the brutal arms of this huge corporates or companies. The decision of the court, said that when a specific company or corporate gets the freedom for making their own decisions , that is choosing a specific colour, size or shape of their product, that sector will become monopolized under that company, and prohibit other companies to come into existence and expression. But there exists a counter argument, in the illiterate areas people often identify the  pills and medicines by their size, shape and colour, when there are 2 pills in the same size, shape and colour, those people will take the one, which ever they get easily, in such areas, the illiterates may get mislead!

Conclusion

The case suggests, monopolies should not be allowed to grow, in the case of Cipla Ltd. v. M K Pharmaceutical, the court ruled that, the plaintiff’s claim for injunction cannot be approved, since it can create a monopoly in the sector. The company Cipla cannot claim a monopoly over the colour or shape, if it is allowed, it won’t be fair, according to Article 301 of the Indian Constitution. The maxim ‘publici juris’, says competitors are free to use common colours, shapes or size as per the law, and until and unless the parliament passes an act overriding it and unless there is a malice for amounting to passing off, such injunctions cannot be granted.

References

Cipla Ltd. v. M K Pharmaceutical  (2008), 2008 (36) PTC 166 (DEL) 

The Constitution of India, 1950 

The Trademarks Act, 1999 

LawBhoomi, ‘Intellectual Property Rights Notes’, (11 April 2026), [Intellectual Property Rights Notes] 

LawBhoomi, ‘Trade Dress Protection and Infringement in India’, (18 September 2025), [Trade Dress Protection and Infringement in India] 

Cornell law Review, ‘Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas A Basis of the State Police Power’, (2 February 1936), [Sic Utere Tuo Ut Alienum Non Laedas A Basis of the State Police Power]