The Delhi High Court directed Dr Reddy’s Laboratories to stop selling or expanding its diabetes drug “Olymviq,” citing phonetic similarity with Novo Nordisk’s “Ozempic.” Justice Jyoti Singh noted such similarity in pharma crosses an unacceptable threshold, indicating prima facie trademark infringement.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court directed Dr Reddy’s Laboratories to halt any further sale or market expansion of its diabetes medicine under the name “Olymviq,” after finding prima facie phonetic similarity with Novo Nordisk’s drug Ozempic.
Justice Jyoti Singh issued the oral order during the hearing of Novo Nordisk’s suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off.
The Court observed,
“According to me, there is a phonetic similarity…and in a pharma, it’s a threshold which I would not like to cross,”
The dispute followed Dr Reddy’s launch of its generic semaglutide injection in India after Novo Nordisk’s patent on the drug expired in March 2026. On March 21, Dr Reddy’s introduced its injectable semaglutide under the brand name “Obeda,” marketing it as a substantially cheaper alternative to Novo Nordisk’s prominent drugs Ozempic and Wegovy.
At the hearing, Dr Reddy’s said the product had already been launched and noted that its semaglutide portfolio included other brand names such as “Obeda.”
Novo Nordisk countered that public materials and media reports referenced only “Obeda,” and that the allegedly infringing name “Olymviq” had not been part of the public launch communications.
The Court also pointed out inconsistencies in Dr Reddy’s timeline, observing that its trademark filing for “Olymviq” described the mark as “proposed to be used,” despite claims that the product had already been commercially released.
Novo Nordisk argued that pharmaceutical trademarks require a stricter anti-confusion standard because even a possible risk of confusion must be averted in the public interest. Citing Supreme Court authority, it submitted that confusion can occur among doctors and pharmacists due to illegible prescriptions, telephonic orders and human error.
The company said,
“If there is any possibility of such confusion in the case of medicines, public policy requires…prevention of confusingly similar names,”
It further argued that the applicable test is one of imperfect recollection and that phonetic and structural similarity alone can establish infringement. It maintained that differences in packaging or additional branding are immaterial if the essential features of the mark are adopted.
On the balance of convenience, Novo Nordisk warned that allowing continued sales would flood the market and create third-party equities, making any later restraint ineffective.
Dr Reddy’s contended that the use of its house mark would prevent confusion.
The Court remained unconvinced, observing that consumers chiefly rely on the product name.
ALSO READ: Trademark Win for Delhivery: Delhi HC Grants Interim Relief in Trademark & Copyright Case
The Court remarked while inspecting the packaging,
“One has to really go looking and hunting for it,”
To resolve the dispute, the Court suggested Dr Reddy’s consider using the alternative name “Obeda,” which it noted was already linked to the company.
The Court said,
“I would rather that you go up this path…It’s a little change of a name here and there,”
The Court warned that if it is not satisfied at the next hearing, it may grant an interim injunction.
Accordingly, the Court ordered Dr Reddy’s to suspend any further rollout of the product under the Olymviq name for the present.
The matter will be heard again on March 27.
Novo Nordisk was represented by Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Amit Sibal, with Advocates Mamta Rani Jha and Hemant Singh from Inttl Advocare. Dr Reddy’s was represented by Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi.
Case Title: Novo Nordisk v. Dr Reddy’s.
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE
