Opella Healthcare Group v. Pureca Laboratories Pvt Ltd (Copyright)

Relevant Acts and provisions

Copyright Act, 1957

Section 50Section 51

Copyright Rules, 2013

Rule 71(1)

Provisions considered: Sections 50 and 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957; Rule 71(1) of the Copyright Rules, 2013; Order XIII-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Rule 27 of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022.

Brief facts

Since 1954 the Plaintiff, part of the Sanofi Group, has marketed its PHENSEDYL cough syrup in packaging featuring a distinctive combination of blue and pink, which it regards as an original artistic work under the Copyright Act, 1957. The packaging has remained substantially unchanged throughout its use in India, first under Rhone Poulenc India Ltd. from 1995 and then under Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. from 2010. In March 2024 the Plaintiff found that the Defendant had a copyright registration, number A-130319/2019, for the artistic work in the label of its own product PHENSERYL, a label which also has a dark blue background and white lettering. The Plaintiff brought this action under Section 51 of the Copyright Act and obtained an ex parte interim injunction on 09.07.2024. A parallel rectification petition, C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 9/2024, under Section 50 read with Rule 71(1) of the Copyright Rules, 2013, was allowed on 12.11.2024 and the Defendant's registration was cancelled; the Defendant did not appeal. The Defendant defended the suit only on the basis of that cancelled registration, then ceased to appear and was set ex parte on 20.07.2026, after which the Plaintiff applied for summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Issues before the Court

1. Was there a realistic chance for the Defendant to defend against a charge of copyright infringement after cancellation of the registration on account of which the impugned label became the subject-matter of the dispute?
2. Is the artistic work depicted on the Defendant's PHENSERYL label similar to, or a colourable imitation of, the artistic work on the Plaintiff's PHENSEDYL package?
3. Does the substantial similarity of the two labels coupled with the absence of the Defendant at the hearing amount to grant of a final injunction without recording evidence?

Court's findings

The Court treated the findings in the 12.11.2024 rectification order as conclusive of the copyright question, having found that the dark blue colouring of the packaging and the white lettering showing the product name were prominent and dominant features of the artistic works, that the Defendant had tried to make its label similar to the Plaintiff's, and that the Defendant had obtained copyright for its label despite the existence of a materially similar label used by the Plaintiff since 1995. The Court found that the sole reasonable objective of such imitative conduct could only be to create an illusion of connection with the Plaintiff's widely known product. Applying Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. v. Kunwer Sachdev, the Court held that where a party's defence is extinguished by an unchallenged order, no issue remains for trial and recording evidence would serve no useful purpose and merely cause undue delay.

Decision

The Delhi High Court allowed I.A. 4622/2025 and granted summary judgment in favour of the Plaintiff, restraining the Defendant from reproducing or using the Plaintiff's artistic work, or any colourable imitation, in its trade dress and packaging. The Plaintiff waived its claims for damages and rendition of accounts.

Cases cited

• Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. v. Kunwer Sachdev, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10764

Authorities referred to in the decision. Please verify each citation in the judgment itself.

Keywords

Artistic Work Colourable Imitation Copyright Rectification Label Design Summary Judgment Trade Dress