Bombay High Court Temporarily Bars Zee Laboratories From Using “GLYZET” Mark, Imposes ₹50 Lakh Costs

The Court has also imposed exemplary costs of ₹50 lakh on Zee Laboratories for adopting the disputed mark in breach of earlier Court orders and for making false statements on oath.

In a judgment dated January 13, 2026, a Single-Judge Bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor, while deciding an interim injunction application, observed that “GLIMET” and “GLYZET” are phonetically, structurally and visually similar and that an average consumer with imperfect recollection is likely to be confused between the two.

Emphasising that a stricter test of deceptive similarity applies to medicinal products, the Court held, “The fact that both “GLIMET” and “GLYZET” treat diabetes but have different compositions heightens the risk of the potentially serious, if not disastrous consequences for an unsuspecting consumer.”

Laboratoires Griffon informed the Court that it has been manufacturing and selling anti-diabetic medicines under the GLIMET and GLIMET DS marks for several decades and that the marks enjoy significant goodwill in the market. It argued that Zee Laboratories had earlier been restrained from using the mark “GLYNET” and had breached its undertaking by continuing sales and subsequently adopting “GLYZET” as a cosmetic variation of the same infringing mark.

Opposing the plea, Zee Laboratories argued that “GLYZET” was distinct from “GLIMET” and had been adopted bona fide. It submitted that any products found in circulation constituted old stock manufactured prior to the injunction.

Rejecting these submissions, the Court held that a party restrained from using an infringing mark cannot evade liability by making superficial changes to the earlier mark.

The Court observed, “Both are six-letter words, commencing with the identical prefix "GL" and ending with the identical suffix "ET", and the substitution of the letters "IM" with "YZ" in the second impugned mark, i.e., "GLYZET", is a minor and superficial variation that does not materially alter the overall impression of the Plaintiffs' mark, i.e., “GLIMET”.”

Rejecting Zee Laboratories' claim of honest adoption, the Court observed that the explanation offered for adopting the mark “GLYZET” was patently dishonest. It noted that if “GLY” was taken from the active ingredient glimepiride and “ZET/ZEP” from the company's name ZEM, the resulting mark would logically be “GLYZEM” and not “GLYZET.”

Taking serious exception to the conduct of Zee Laboratories, the Court found that false statements had been made in affidavits filed before it, including claims that manufacturing had ceased and that the products in circulation were merely old stock.

“Such conduct, if viewed lightly or in the manner the Defendants seek, would encourage infringers like the Defendants to make superficial or cosmetic alterations to an offending mark and then compel the registered proprietor of the mark to repeatedly approach the Courts for re-adjudication of infringement and seek relief. Such conduct would amount to putting a premium on dishonesty and thus cannot in any manner be countenanced,” the Court said.

Holding that the conduct of Zee Laboratories amounted to an abuse of the judicial process, the Court imposed costs of ₹50 lakh and directed initiation of proceedings for giving false evidence.

Consequently, the Court restrained Zee Laboratories and all associated entities from using the marks GLYZET, GLYNET or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to GLIMET or GLIMET DS in relation to pharmaceutical products.

For Plaintiffs: Advocate Hiren Kamod with Advocates Kiran Mehta, Archita Gharat and Anees Patel instructed by Kiran Mehta

For Defendants: Advocate Atmaram Patade with Advocates Pranit Pawar, Bhagawan Kasture, Suraj Naik, Akshay Adivarekar, Atharva Kudtarkar, Shraddha Patil instructed by Chetan Alai for D-1, 2 & 4