09/06/2026
Case Title: Rexcin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rekin Pharma Pvt. Ltd. 27th January, 2026:C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 111/2023:2026:DHC:643: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Rexcin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., incorporated in 2003, claimed prior adoption and use of "REXCIN" since December 2003 as its house/trade name in pharmaceutical manufacturing, mainly as a white-label supplier (B2B) to companies like Sun Pharma, with products sold under third-party trademarks and "REXCIN" appearing only inconspicuously as marketer/licensor; it held registrations in Classes 16, 44 & 45 (obtained 2022) and pending applications in Classes 5 & 35, but admitted no direct use of "REXCIN" on its own products for sale to end consumers. Rekin Pharma Pvt. Ltd., incorporated in 2017, adopted "REKIN" as its coined house mark and launched B2C pharmaceutical products under "REKIN" formatives including "REKIN-SP" (registered in Class 5 on 01.09.2020, applied 04.05.2017 on proposed-to-be-used basis).
Rexcin filed rectification petition C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 111/2023 seeking cancellation of "REKIN-SP" on grounds of deceptive similarity, prior goodwill, confusion, passing off, bad faith, and violation of various Sections of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and simultaneously filed suit CS(COMM) 142/2023 seeking injunction against Rekin for infringement and passing off.
The Court first decided the rectification petition, finding that Rexcin failed to prove actual trademark use of "REXCIN" (mere trade name mention on third-party branded products insufficient under Sections 29(5) & 29(6)), no evidence of consumer-facing sales, promotions, goodwill or actual confusion despite six years coexistence, no overlap in trade channels (B2B vs B2C), and Rekin as bona fide prior adopter in Class 5. All statutory objections under Sections 9, 11, 18 were rejected; rectification petition dismissed for lack of merit. Consequently, interim injunction in the suit was also declined.
Crisp Bullet Points of Law Settled:
Incidental/inconspicuous mention of a corporate/trade name on product packaging (e.g., as "manufactured for" or "under trademark usership") does not constitute "use as a trademark" or source-identifying use under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, particularly Sections 29(5) & 29(6), unless it functions as a badge of origin recognizable by consumers in the course of trade.
For rectification under Section 57 or success in infringement/passing off claims, the petitioner/plaintiff must establish actual commercial trademark use with concrete evidence of consumer-facing sales, promotions, and acquired goodwill, not merely nominal B2B transactions or trade name presence.
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation
Written By: Nihar Ranjan Nayak, Trademark Attorney, Advocate Punjab and Haryana High court, Chandigarh.
