Delhi High Court – Orders
Smithkline Beecham Limited vs Ghk Pharmaceuticals Private Limited on 28 April, 2026
Author: Tushar Rao Gedela
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela
$~37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 453/2026
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM LIMITED .....Plaintiff
Through: Ms. Tanya Varma, Mr. Vardaan Anand,
Ms. Ruchika Yadav and Ms. Hansika
Bajaj, Advocaes.
versus
GHK PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Defendant
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
ORDER
% 28.04.2026
I.A. 11826/2026 (Additional Documents)
1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under
Order XI Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred
to as’CPC‘) as applicable to commercial suits under the Commercial Courts
Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CC Act‘) seeking leave to place on record
additional documents.
2. The plaintiff is permitted to file additional documents in accordance with
the provisions of the CC Act and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules,
2018.
3. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
I.A. 11825/2026 (Exemption from pre-litigation mediation)
4. This is an application filed by the plaintiff seeking exemption from
instituting pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the CC Act.
5. As the present matter contemplates urgent interim relief, in light of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar vs. T.K.D. Keerthi:
CS(COMM) 453/2026 Page 1 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2026 at 21:28:30
(2024) 5 SCC 815, exemption from the requirement of pre-institution
mediation is granted.
6. The application stands disposed of.
I.A. 11827/2026 (Exemption from filing clearer, translation and
unredacted copies)
7. This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Section 151
of CPC seeking exemption from filing clearer, translation and unredacted
copies along with the captioned suit.
8. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. However, true
typed/translated/clear/unredacted copies of the documents with proper margins
be filed within four weeks with an advance copy to the defendant.
9. The application stands disposed of.
I.A. 11824/2026 (U/o XXXIX Rules 1 and 2)
10. Present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order
XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC, 1908 seeking ex-parte ad-interim injunction
against the defendant.
11. The plaintiff-SmithKline Beecham Limited is a U.K. based company
which is a prominent member of the G.S.K. Group of companies. GSK plc is
stated to be the ultimate parent company of the G.S.K. Group, and the parent
company of the plaintiff. GSK is a science-led global healthcare company with
turnover in the years 2023, 2024 and 2025 of £30.3 billion, £31.4 billion and
£32.7 billion respectively, worldwide. In 2025, GSK is stated to have achieved
£13.5 billion and £10.0 billion in global turnover for its specialty medicine
products and general medicine respectively. GSK is one of the largest
pharmaceutical companies in the world with more than 2 billion medicine and
vaccine doses supplied in 2025. As of the end of 2025, the company employs
over 66,000 employees across the world and has always laid strong emphasis
on research and development to be able to produce many of the best-selling
CS(COMM) 453/2026 Page 2 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2026 at 21:28:30
pharmaceutical and consumer healthcare products of the world. GSK’s vaccine
products achieved approx. £9.2 billion global turnover in 2025.
12. Established in the year 2000 following the merger of Glaxo Welcome plc
and plaintiff, GSK claims to have a rich legacy dating back to the year 1715.
GSK’s global presence extends to more than 150 countries, where it operates
commercial activities. The plaintiff claims that for the past many years, GSK
has received the prestigious number one ranking in the Access to Medicine
Index, which evaluates pharmaceutical companies worldwide based on their
efforts to enhance medicine accessibility in developing regions.
13. GSK is claimed to have had a presence in India dating back over 100
years through its Indian subsidiary, GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited
which was incorporated in 1924 and was listed on the Indian National Stock
Exchange in 1969. GSK also supplies a number of vaccine products to the
Indian market, including SHINGRIX, BOOSTRIX, SYNFLORIX, FLUARIX
TETRA and INFANRIX. In India, GSK’s pharmaceutical product portfolio
includes AUGMENTIN, CALPOL, CCM, COBADEX CZS, NEOSPORIN,
CEFTUM, ELTROXIN, BETNOVATE, and T-BACT. GlaxoSmithKline
Pharmaceuticals Limited is one of the market leaders in the Indian
pharmaceutical sector with a turnover of over Rs.3,723 crores in FY 2024-25
and over Rs.3,407 in FY 2023-24 and currently employs over 3,113 people in
India (as of March, 2025). The details of the awards and accolades received by
the plaintiff in India are enumerated in para 19 of the plaint.
14. GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited, headquartered in Mumbai,
has a large manufacturing unit in Nashik, Maharashtra. Inaugurated in 1983,
the said unit is situated on 47 acres of land in Ambad Industrial Area and
manufactures tablets, creams and ointments. Furthermore, through a
warehousing and distribution network comprising 20 Contract Manufacturing
CS(COMM) 453/2026 Page 3 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2026 at 21:28:30
Organisations and over 5,300 stockists covering over 1400 towns, it
successfully provides superior timely patient service.
15. The plaintiff’s trademark ‘GSK’ is the abbreviation of its parent
company’s former trade name GlaxoSmithKline plc. Following the formation
of the parent company of the plaintiff, ‘GSK’ was adopted as a trademark and
was used as a source identifier in relation to the plaintiff and its business. In due
course of time, the plaintiff adopted and started using various GSK formative
trademarks viz., ‘GSK’, ,
etc.
16. The plaintiff also claims to own statutory rights in and is the registered
proprietor of the ‘GSK’ trademarks which are registered in numerous
countries/territories worldwide. In India, the plaintiff filed for trademark
registration of ‘GSK’ in the year 2000, the details of which are enumerated in
para 23 of the plaint.
17. The plaintiff has used the trademark ‘GSK’ on its product packaging,
annual reports, also on its branding and promotion as well as patient
information materials. The trademark ‘GSK’ is the integral constituent of the
domain name www.gsk.com which was registered on 07.081998. Further, the
India specific domain name www.gsk.co.in also stands registered in the name
of the plaintiff since 16.02.2005.
18. Plaintiff states that owing to the popularity of the ‘GSK’ trademarks, it
has diligently and consistently pursued infringement of its ‘GSK’ trademarks
and varied attempts by third parties to pass off their goods and services as those
CS(COMM) 453/2026 Page 4 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2026 at 21:28:30
of the plaintiff. It is further claimed that the plaintiff’s trademark ‘GSK’
belongs to the category of well-known, well-reputed and famous trademarks
which is instantly identifiable and recognizable by both the members of the
trade and public as being exclusively associated with the plaintiff and no one
else.
19. It is stated that defendant no.1 is a company incorporated and registered
under the Companies Act, 2013 having its registered address in Dehradun,
Uttarakhand and is engaged in the marketing of pharmaceuticals. It is stated
that the trade name of the defendant no.1 is GHK Pharmaceuticals Private
Limited which comprises “GHK” and is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s
‘GSK’ trademarks. Additionally, the defendant no.1 is using ‘GHK’ as a part of
its domain name, on its website, as a part of its email address, on product
packaging, third-party listings as well as on its advertising materials.
20. It is further stated that the defendant no.2 is the Director of defendant
no.1 and has filed applications for registration of the impugned marks which
contain the term “GHK” as the dominant part of the mark. In the year 2020, the
plaintiff came across defendant no.2’s trademark applications and proceeded to
file notice of opposition against these applications, details of which are
enumerated in para 32 of the plaint.
21. It is stated that in January, 2026, while still awaiting a hearing to be
appointed in the oppositions, the plaintiff conducted a routine check into the
activities of the defendants and came across its website accessible at
https://ghkpharmaceuticals.com/. The registration information for the said
domain revealed that it was registered on 29.07.2023. The plaintiff also came
across listings for products under the impugned marks on third-party website.
22. It is further stated that given that the defendants were contesting the
oppositions and had expanded their use of the mark “GHK”, the plaintiff as a
last attempt to resolve the matter amicably, issued a Cease and Desist letter
CS(COMM) 453/2026 Page 5 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2026 at 21:28:30
dated 27.01.2026 to the defendants, which was responded vide reply dated
28.01.2026 refusing to comply with any of the requisitions.
23. It is asserted that the defendants have adopted the logo
as well as other trademarks that contain the prefix “GHK”, namely GHKRDSR
(CAP.), GHKCAL, GHK-FIT, GHK-DSP (TAB.) and GHK-FE (TAB.). The
mark ‘GHK’ is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trademark ‘GSK’, and has
been used in relation to identical goods and services, being pharmaceuticals. It
is submitted that the defendants’ impugned marks and name featuring ‘GHK’
prominently bear such striking similarity to the plaintiff’s ‘GSK’ trademarks
that unwary consumers are highly likely to be confused, which would harm the
reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff.
24. Predicated thereon, the plaintiff seeks an ex-parte ad-interim injunction
against the defendants.
25. After having perused the plaint, and the documents annexed therewith
and having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff, this Court
is of the considered opinion that an ex-parte ad-interim injunction would be in
order.
26. To appreciate the controversy, it would be relevant to have a
comparative table of both the rival marks of the parties which is extracted
hereunder:-
PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT
CS(COMM) 453/2026 Page 6 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2026 at 21:28:30
27. A comparison between the marks clearly indicate that the registered
mark ‘GSK’ of the plaintiff and ‘GHK’ of the defendants would visually,
structurally and conceptually be deceptively similar. Though the placement of
the mark ‘GHK’ by the defendants on the packaging of its goods is in the center
of such packaging while the mark ‘GSK’ of the plaintiff is ordinarily on the
right top corner, having regard to the fact that both parties manufacture
products falling in Class-5 i.e. pharmaceutical preparations and medicines, the
deceptive similarity gathers greater significance. It is also to be noted that on
the blister strip on the rear side of the defendant’s products, the corporate name
of the defendants along with the mark ‘GHK’ with different combination like
‘GHKCAL’, ‘GHK-DSP’ etc. appear which would add to the confusion in the
minds of an ordinary consumer. While purchasing medicines and
pharmaceutical preparations, an unwary consumer with an average intelligence
and imperfect recollection is most likely to be confused or deceived believing
the goods of the defendants to be that of the plaintiff. It cannot be denied that
both the parties manufacture medicinal preparations in Class-5 and therefore,
the trade circles, the distribution channels and the consumers would be
CS(COMM) 453/2026 Page 7 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2026 at 21:28:30
common. Thus, confusion or deception on aforesaid account cannot be ruled
out.
28. Though the defendants, in their response to the Cease and Desist notice
of the plaintiff, have categorically stated that the difference between the letter
‘H’ and ‘S’ in both marks is neither trivial nor can be ignored, however, in the
opinion of this Court, the distinction is not clearly discernible. It is also to be
noted that while the plaintiff’s mark ‘GSK’ was registered in Class-5 and
Class-10 as far back as on 09.06.2000, the mark ‘GHK’ and other formative
marks in Class-5 by the defendants were applied for registration only on
27.02.2020. The said mark was published in the Trade Marks Journal on
18.05.2020, and the plaintiff filed its opposition immediately thereafter on
18.09.2020.
29. The Supreme Court in Cadila Health Care Ltd. vs. Cadila
Pharmaceuticals Ltd.: (2001) 5 SCC 73 held as under:-
“25. The drugs have a marked difference in the compositions with completely
different side effects, the test should be applied strictly as the possibility of
harm resulting from any kind of confusion by the consumer can have
unpleasant if not disastrous results. The courts need to be particularly
vigilant where the defendant’s drug, of which passing-off is alleged, is meant
for curing the same ailment as the plaintiff’s medicine but the compositions
are different. The confusion is more likely in such cases and the incorrect
intake of medicine may even result in loss of life or other serious health
problems. In this regard, reference may usefully be made to the case
of Glenwood Laboratories, Inc. v. American Home Products Corpn. [173
USPQ 19 (1972)455 F Reports 2d, 1384 (1972)] where it was held as under:
“The products of the parties are medicinal and the applicant’s product
is contraindicated for the disease for which opposer’s product is
indicated. It is apparent that confusion or mistake in filling a
prescription for either product could produce harmful effects. Under
such circumstances it is necessary for obvious reasons, to avoid
confusion or mistake in the dispensing of the pharmaceuticals.”
xxx xxx xxx
30. In the case of Syntex Laboratories Inc. v. Norwich Pharmacal Co. [169
USPQ 1 (2nd Cir 1971)] it is observed as under:
“Stricter standard in order to prevent likelihood of confusion is
desirable where involved trade marks are applied to differentCS(COMM) 453/2026 Page 8 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2026 at 21:28:30
prescribed pharmaceutical products and where confusion could result
in physical harm to the consuming public.”
xxx xxx xxx
32. Public interest would support lesser degree of proof showing confusing
similarity in the case of trade mark in respect of medicinal products as
against other non-medicinal products. Drugs are poisons, not sweets.
Confusion between medicinal products may, therefore, be life threatening,
not merely inconvenient. Noting the frailty of human nature and the pressures
placed by society on doctors, there should be as many clear indicators as
possible to distinguish two medicinal products from each other. It is not
uncommon that in hospitals, drugs can be requested verbally and/or under
critical/pressure situations. Many patients may be elderly, infirm or illiterate.
They may not be in a position to differentiate between the medicine
prescribed and bought which is ultimately handed over to them. This view
finds support from McCarthy on Trade Marks, 3rd Edn., para 23.12 of which
reads as under:
“The tests of confusing similarity are modified when the goods involved
are medicinal products. Confusion of source or product between
medicinal products may produce physically harmful results to
purchasers and greater protection is required than in the ordinary
case. If the goods involved are medicinal products each with different
effects and designed for even subtly different uses, confusion among the
products caused by similar marks could have disastrous effects. For
these reasons, it is proper to require a lesser quantum of proof of
confusing similarity for drugs and medicinal preparations. The same
standard has been applied to medical products such as surgical sutures
and clavicle splints.”
Having regard to the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court, it
cannot be said that the mere replacement of the letter ‘S’ in the plaintiff’s mark
‘GSK’ by inserting the letter ‘H’ found in the defendant’s mark ‘GHK’, a great
distinction, which is easily discernible, can be made out.
30. That apart, the sales figures and the research and development
expenditure furnished by the plaintiff also indicates its substantial goodwill and
reputation as also its commitment to promote its registered trademark ‘GSK’
not only in India but globally as well.
31. Predicated on the above, it is evident that the plaintiff has been able to
make a prima facie strong case in its favour as against the defendants. The
balance of convenience is tilted in favour of the plaintiff, keeping in view the
CS(COMM) 453/2026 Page 9 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2026 at 21:28:30
voluminous documentary evidence placed on record by the plaintiff. Plaintiff
shall suffer irreparable loss and injury which may not be compensated
adequately in monetary terms in case ex-parte ad-interim injunction orders are
not passed.
32. In view of the above, the following directions are passed:-
(i) The defendants, their employees, servants, agents and all others in
active concert with them are restrained from manufacturing, selling,
offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in goods
or services under the impugned marks GHK-RDSR (CAP.),
GHKCAL, GHK-FIT, GHK-DSP (TAB.), GHK-FE (TAB.) andcomprising ‘GHK’, and/or any other mark
which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s ‘GSK’ trademarks;
(ii) The defendants are directed to take down its website accessible at
https://ghkpharmaceuticals.com/ till the pendency of the suit;
(iii) The defendants are directed to take down all references to the
impugned marks or name ‘GHK Pharmaceuticals Private Limited’ on
its website, social media and third-party platforms;
33. Issue notice.
34. Let a reply to this application be filed by the defendant within four weeks
from service. Rejoinder, thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
35. Compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC shall be done within ten
days from date.
CS(COMM) 453/2026
36. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.
CS(COMM) 453/2026 Page 10 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2026 at 21:28:30
37. Upon filing of the process fee, issue summons of the suit to the defendant
through all permissible modes.
38. The summons shall state that the Written Statement shall be filed by the
defendant within 30 days from the date of the receipt of summons. Alongwith
the Written Statement, the defendant shall also file Affidavit of
Admission/Denial of the documents of the plaintiff, without which the Written
Statement shall not be taken on record.
39. Liberty is granted to the plaintiff to file Replication, if any, within 30
days from the receipt of the Written Statement. Along with the Replication
filed by the plaintiff, an Affidavit of Admission/Denial of the documents of
defendant be filed by the plaintiff, without which the Replication shall not be
taken on record.
40. In case any party is placing reliance on a document, which is not in their
power and possession, its details and source shall be mentioned in the list of
reliance, which shall also be filed with the pleadings.
41. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same
shall be sought and given within the prescribed timelines.
42. List before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on 31.07.2026 for completion of
service and pleadings.
43. List before the Court on 13.10.2026.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
APRIL 28, 2026
yrj
CS(COMM) 453/2026 Page 11 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2026 at 21:28:30
