Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 26-10-2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited (Petitioner); Respondents – 1) Registrar of Trademarks, Intellectual Property Building, Chennai, and 2) Nice Neotech Medical Systems Private Limited (Defendant). The appeal (CMA(TM) No. 31 of 2025) challenges the Assistant Registrar’s order dated 22‑08‑2025 which disallowed Opposition No. 797238 and allowed registration of Nice Neotech’s device mark “nice” (Application No. 1730955, Class 10 – Medical Equipment and Apparatus).
  • Background: Dr. Reddy’s adopted the trademark “NISE” in 1995 for pain‑relieving pharmaceutical products (Class 5) and holds registrations Nos. 803632, 803620 (dated 26‑05‑1998) plus subsequent marks (NISE KID TABLETS, NISE MR TABLETS, etc.). Nice Neotech, incorporated on 10‑07‑2001, filed for the “nice” mark on 11‑09‑2008, claiming use from 10‑07‑2001; the mark was advertised in Trade Marks Journal No. 1558 on 15‑10‑2012 with a territorial restriction to South India.
  • Opposition: Dr. Reddy’s filed Opposition No. 797238 on 03‑01‑2013 alleging visual and phonetic deceptiveness, likelihood of confusion, dishonest adoption, and invoking Sections 9(1)(a), 9(2)(a), 11(2), 11(3), 11(6), 11(7), 11(10), 12 and 18(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Nice Neotech counter‑stated that the opposition notice was filed by an unauthorized agent, that “nice” is a dictionary word, that the goods differ in price, packaging and use, and that it would not use “nice” for pharmaceuticals.
  • Procedural History: Evidence was filed by Dr. Reddy’s on 19‑11‑2013 (affidavit of Associate Director Legal P. Jayavardhan). Nice Neotech filed its counter‑statement on 08‑05‑2013 and later evidence on 19‑02‑2014 (Rule 51 affidavit). The Assistant Registrar, after hearings, held on 22‑08‑2025 that the nature, character and performance of the goods, their trade channels and purchaser classes were different, thus no confusion, and entered the mark on the register (Certificate No. 3914323 dated 10‑10‑2025).
  • Appeal Arguments: Dr. Reddy’s argued that the Registrar erred by treating class differences as determinative, that “NISE” and “nice” are phonetically identical, that Nice Neotech’s claim of use from 2001 lacked evidence, and that “NISE” is a well‑known mark deserving protection under Sections 11(2) and 11(3). Counsel cited several Supreme Court and High Court precedents (Cadila, Corn Products, Wipro Enterprises, etc.) to argue that goods in different classes can be cognate and that phonetic similarity should be given weight.
  • Respondent Arguments: Nice Neotech, represented by Director Mrs. Sheeba Wilson, contended that the appeal was meritless, that “nice” stands for “Neonatal Intensive Care Equipment”, that the goods are distinct (pharmaceuticals vs neonatal equipment), that there is no actual confusion, and that the Registrar’s order was reasoned. It also explained missing digitised records due to 2015 floods and submitted office copies and accountant’s statement as evidence of continuous use.
  • Legal Points Considered: The Court examined the seven factors from Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001) – nature of marks, degree of resemblance, nature of goods, similarity of character and performance, class of purchasers, mode of purchase, and surrounding circumstances. It also considered the doctrine of natural expansion, the requirement for a mark to be “well‑known” under Section 11(2), and the evidentiary rules under Rule 51 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that while “NISE” and “nice” are phonetically similar, the substantial differences in the nature, purpose, purchasers and trade channels of the goods outweigh any likelihood of confusion or association. The appellant failed to prove that “NISE” is a well‑known mark in India nor that the respondent’s adoption was dishonest or amounted to passing off.
  • Consequently, the Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, upheld the Assistant Registrar’s order dated 22‑08‑2025, and confirmed the registration of “nice” (Application No. 1730955). No order as to costs was made, and any connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Topics: Trademark Law, Healthcare Products