Trademark protection is super important for any business that wants to secure its unique identity—whether it’s the name, logo, tagline, color, or anything that represents the brand. But sometimes, courts reject trademark claims when they feel the mark isn’t actually as unique as the brand believes. That’s exactly what happened in the Glucon-D vs Glucose-D Trademark case, Glucon-D, one of India’s most well-known household names. The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently refused their request to stop other companies from using similar-sounding names, saying the terms weren’t distinctive enough to be monopolized. Keep reading to understand why this happened and explore more of the latest IP news.
What Is the Background Behind the Glucon-D vs Glucose-D Trademark Case?
Before diving deeper, it’s important to understand how this case actually began. The issue started when Zydus Wellness—the company behind the hugely popular Glucon-D—noticed that another brand was selling glucose-based products using the names “Glucose-D” and “Glucose-C.” Since Glucon-D has been a trusted household name in India for years, Zydus believed these names were far too similar and could easily confuse consumers. They pointed out that they held registered trademarks for “Glucon-D” and “Glucon-C,” along with distinctive packaging and branding, which they felt deserved protection. In their lawsuit, Zydus asked the court to stop the other company from using names like Glucose-D and Glucose-C, requested an injunction preventing them from selling products with similar names, argued that the similarity could mislead customers, claimed the packaging looked deceptively similar, and essentially sought to protect their trademark from any imitation or misuse.
Meanwhile, the defendants argued that words like “glucose,” “D,” and “C” are purely descriptive and simply refer to the ingredients—glucose plus Vitamin D or C. They insisted that no company should be allowed to monopolize such common, descriptive terms. This clash between what is ‘descriptive’ and what is ‘distinctive’ is what sparked the legal battle and eventually brought the case before the Himachal Pradesh High Court.
Read Also: Cody Rhodes Wins Resolution in WWE “American Nightmare” Trademark Case
What Did the Himachal Pradesh High Court Decide in the Glucon-D vs Glucose-D Trademark Case?
The case took a real turn once it reached the Himachal Pradesh High Court. After listening to both sides, the judge took a closer look at the arguments and ultimately decided not to give Zydus any temporary relief. The court noted that words like “glucose,” “D,” and “C” are generic and simply describe what’s inside the product—so no company can claim exclusive rights over such common terms. The judge also pointed out that Zydus had already accepted disclaimers during trademark registration, meaning they had agreed they wouldn’t monopolize these descriptive words. On top of that, the defendant’s packaging and overall branding looked quite different, with its own identity, so the court felt there wasn’t a strong chance of customer confusion. Because of all this, the High Court refused to issue an injunction, letting the other company keep using the names “Glucose-D” and “Glucose-C.” The ruling made it pretty clear that descriptive terms can’t be owned by anyone, even a big brand like Glucon-D.
Conclusion
The Glucon-D vs Glucose-D case is a reminder that even well-known brands can’t claim ownership over common, descriptive terms. The Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision underscores the importance of selecting truly distinctive trademarks, particularly for everyday products. While Zydus hoped to protect its brand from lookalike names, the court made it clear that descriptive words are generally considered to belong to the public. As trademark disputes continue to escalate in India, this ruling sets an important precedent for how the law strikes a balance between brand protection and fair competition.
Read Also: WIPO Partners with Georgia to Launch First MBA in IP Innovation and Entrepreneurship