Delhi High Court rules incidental corporate name use on packaging does not amount to trademark use

The Delhi High Court has clarified that the incidental appearance of a corporate name on product packaging does not constitute trademark use, reaffirming that trademark rights arise from bona fide commercial use as a source identifier and not merely from corporate identity or registration.

The ruling came in a dispute between Rexcin Pharmaceuticals and Rekin Pharma, involving allegations of trademark infringement and passing off in relation to pharmaceutical products bearing the names “Rexcin” and “Rekin”.

Rexcin Pharmaceuticals, incorporated in 2003, claimed rights over the mark “Rexcin”, asserting use since December 2003 as its trade name and house mark. It argued that the mark had acquired goodwill through nationwide use, promotional activity and sales, which it stated stood at INR 830.09-lakh in the 2021–2022 financial year.

In 2022, Rexcin filed trademark applications for “Rexcin” in Classes 16, 44 and 45, all claiming use since 2003 and subsequently registered. It also filed applications in Class 5 and Class 35. While the Class 35 application was accepted and advertised, the Class 5 application faced objections owing to prior third-party marks.

Rekin Pharma, incorporated in 2017, adopted “Rekin” as a brand name and launched more than 60 pharmaceutical products the same year. The products, sold as Schedule H drugs, were marketed directly to consumers under brand extensions such as Rekin-SP, Rekin-NP and Rekin-CT. Rekin also established an online presence through its website and third-party platforms.

Competing claims
Rexcin objected to Rekin’s trademark applications after becoming aware of them in 2022 and subsequently filed both a civil suit and a rectification petition. It alleged deceptive similarity between the marks, arguing that the substitution of “XC” with “K” and the addition of generic suffixes such as “SP” were insufficient to distinguish the products. Rexcin also alleged bad faith, unfair advantage and likelihood of confusion under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Rekin denied the allegations, contending that its marks were distinctive, that there was no overlap in trade channels, and that no evidence of confusion had emerged despite several years of coexistence. It further argued that Rexcin had no registration in Class 5 and did not use “Rexcin” as a product mark.

Court’s findings
The court examined Rexcin’s invoices dating back to 2004 and noted that while Rexcin appeared as a marketer or licensor, the products themselves were sold under third-party trademarks such as Moisturex, Silverex Ionic and Gentalene Plus. The name “Rexcin” appeared only incidentally and did not function as a source identifier.

Physical inspection of product samples confirmed that Rekin used “Rekin” prominently as a trademark, while Rexcin’s name appeared only as a corporate reference. The court held that such incidental use of a corporate name on packaging does not amount to trademark use. It emphasised that trademark rights depend on actual commercial use of a mark to distinguish goods, not on mere registration or use as a trade name.

The ruling reinforces the principle that trademark protection flows from bona fide market use and serves as a caution to companies relying on corporate names without deploying them as trademarks.