Madras High Court Temporarily Bars Use Of “URG-9”, Finds It Deceptively Similar To “ARG-9”

Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy passed the order on January 7, 2026, while deciding the interim injunction application in a trademark infringement and passing-off suit concerning pharmaceutical products.

The court observed, “The only difference between the two marks is in the initial alphabet or vowel. The rival marks are used in relation to nearly identical pharmaceutical preparations. When an overall comparison is made between ARG-9 and URG-9, viewed from the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect recollection, I conclude prima facie that the two marks are deceptively similar.”

Nouveau Medicament told the Court that it has been manufacturing and marketing a pharmaceutical preparation under the mark “ARG-9” since October 2003 for the treatment of intrauterine growth retardation (IUGR). It stated that the mark was registered in 2013 and that the product had been sold continuously over the years.

The company stated that it came across the use of the mark “URG-9” by Foregen Healthcare for a pharmaceutical product containing similar ingredients. It was submitted that despite the issuance of a cease-and-desist notice in February 2025, the use of disputed mark continued. It therefore sought to restrain Foregen Healthcare from using the allegedly similar mark.

Opposing the interim relief plea, Foregen Healthcare argued that the marks were not deceptively similar and that “URG-9” was derived from the medical condition IUGR. It was also submitted that both products contained L-Arginine and that Nouveau Medicament could not claim exclusivity over such a descriptive or ingredient-related mark.

After examining the rival marks, the Court noted that both “ARG-9” and “URG-9” were alpha-numeric marks sharing an identical numeric component and were used for pharmaceutical products intended for similar therapeutic purposes. The Court observed that a minor variation in the initial alphabet was insufficient, at the prima facie stage, to rule out the likelihood of confusion.

Rejecting Foregen Healthcare's argument that there was no exclusivity as both product names were based on common pharmaceutical ingredient, the Court observed that, “It is, no doubt, true that marks derived from the name of the ingredient of a pharmaceutical preparation are not, inherently, as strong as invented or arbitrary marks. This drawback may, however, be offset by acquired distinctiveness.”

It added that Nouveau Medicament had established prior use of the mark “ARG-9” and that long and continuous use, coupled with sales figures placed on record, supported a case of acquired distinctiveness in its favour.

Applying the test of an average consumer with imperfect recollection, the Court found that a prima facie case was made out and that the balance of convenience lay in favour of Nouveau Medicament.

Accordingly, the Court granted an interim injunction restraining Foregen Healthcare from using the mark “URG-9” in relation to pharmaceutical products. However, to balance equities, it permitted the company to exhaust its existing stock bearing the disputed mark within three months, subject to filing an affidavit disclosing inventory details.

Case Title: Nouveau Medicament Private Limited v. Foregen Healthcare Ltd.

Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 15

Case Number: C.S. (COMM DIV) NO. 184 OF 2025

For Applicant: Advocates M.S. Bharath, Aditya Rajesh, Manu Thomas George and Aaryyan Aathreya

For Respondents: Advocates Pawan Sharma and Preetha Natarajan