COFSILS v. DOLOSILS: Delhi HC Rules in Favour of Cipla

Summary

The Delhi High Court addressed the dispute between Cipla and Micro Labs regarding alleged trademark and trade dress infringement of COFSILS by DOLOSILS products. Cipla established that its COFSILS marks and packaging were distinctive. The Court found that DOLOSILS products were deceptively similar in mark, packaging, and overall get-up, amounting to smart copying. An ad-interim injunction was granted, restraining the Defendants from using the impugned packaging or any deceptively similar mark. The matter was referred to mediation, while stock exhaustion was permitted under Court supervision.

Background

The Plaintiff, Cipla Health Limited (“Cipla”), engaged in the healthcare business, is well known for its COFSIL range of products. One of its most successful products is COFSILS Lozenges sold in various flavours with distinctive packaging. Cipla also markets COFSILS Cough Syrup, which has its own unique trade dress and packaging.

The mark ‘COFSILS’ was coined and adopted by Cipla Limited in 2002 and later assigned to Cipla in 2016. Since then, Cipla has developed and marketed the COFSILS Lozenges with packaging that includes distinctive features such as an orange-white-blue-silver colour scheme, curved design, sparkle motif, square-round indentation, specific placement of product details, and blister packs of 10 lozenges. The COFSILS Cough Syrup trade dress and packaging were introduced in 2017.

In February 2025, Cipla discovered that the Defendants were selling DOLOSILS Lozenges and Cough Syrup under the impugned mark/trade dress/packaging that were deceptively similar to Cipla’s COFSILS Lozenges and Cough Syrup. Defendant No. 1, Micro Labs Limited (“Micro Labs”), had applied for registration of the wordmark DOLOSILS in Class 5 on 1 December 2023, on a “proposed to be used” basis. The products were manufactured and sold through Defendant Nos. 2 (subsidiaries/sister concerns) and Defendant No. 3 (manufacturer of DOLOSILS Cough Syrups).

Cipla issued a cease-and-desist notice in February 2025. Micro Labs initially proposed to resolve the dispute, and discussions took place between March and May 2025. However, Micro Labs subsequently stopped responding. In July 2025, promotions on Micro Labs’ LinkedIn page showed expansion of DOLOSILS Cough Syrup. Accordingly, Cipla’s investigator purchased these infringing products from the Delhi market and various e-pharmacies. Interestingly, Micro Labs’ website falsely claimed that the products were “launching soon,”, even though they were already available in the market, suggesting an attempt to evade liability.

Aggrieved by these actions, Cipla filed a suit before the Delhi High Court seeking an interim injunction against the Defendants.

Cipla’s Arguments

• • The Defendants deliberately and dishonestly adopted a deceptively similar mark and virtually identical packaging trade dress, colour combination, and pattern to Cipla’s well-known COFSILS products, selling them for the same indications of sore throat and cough.
  • Cipla’s uniquely coined suffix, “SILS” is arbitrary and fanciful, having no origin or derivation from any active ingredient, body part, therapeutic use, or medical ailment. Hence, Micro Labs’ addition of “DOLO” to Cipla’s suffix showed mala fide intent.

Defendants’ Submissions:

• • Micro Labs undertook to discontinue the impugned DOLOSILS Cough Syrup trade dress and packaging.
  • With respect to the DOLOSILS Lozenges, it argued that:
    • The packaging was not deceptively similar.
    • The suffix “SILS” is derived from “tonsils” and is common to the trade.
    • The cloud-shaped blister pack is generic in the industry.
  • After some arguments, Micro Labs sought six weeks to exhaust existing stock for both Cough Syrups and Lozenges in its current packaging and expressed willingness for mediation regarding the wordmark “DOLOSILS.”
  • Defendants No. 2 and 3 (manufacturers) submitted that they were only contract manufacturers and agreed to abide by the Court’s orders.

Court’s Findings:

• • Cipla’s registered trademarks and packaging for COFSILS products were established.
  • A comparison showed that Defendants’ products under “DOLOSILS” were deceptively similar in trademark, trade dress, packaging, and overall get-up.

Cipla’s COFSILS Cough Syrup and Lozenges	Micro Labs’ DOLOSILS Cough Syrup and Lozenges

• • To an average consumer, the two products appeared virtually identical, with identical product categories, consumer base, and trade channels.
  • The Court noted the “smart copying” of Cipla’s distinctive features.

Decision:

• • Ad-interim injunction granted.
  • Defendants restrained from manufacturing, selling, distributing, or advertising products under the impugned trade dress/packaging or any deceptively similar marks.
  • Defendants allowed to exhaust existing stock within six weeks, subject to filing stock statements and seek approval of the Court and Cipla of the proposed new packaging.
  • Use of the “DOLOSILS” mark not injuncted at this stage, but Defendants barred from using the same font/styling as COFSILS.
  • Matter referred to Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.

Citation: Cipla Health Limited v. Micro Labs Limited & Ors. High Court of Delhi, CS(COMM) 1017/2025, on 24th September 2025, Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163849247/