In a judgement that can have a huge impact on the course of Indian pharmaceutical market, the Delhi High Court has ruled  in favour of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., permanently prohibiting Biodeal Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. from making and selling pharmaceutical products with marks that are confusingly similar to Sun Pharma's registered trademarks, PEPFIZ and MINOZ. 

In an oral order dated December 16, 2025, Justice Tejas Karia determined that Biodeal's use of the marks PEPFIX-DSR and MINOZIL constituted blatant trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. The Court decreed the suit under the rules of the Commercial Courts Act of 2015, noting that the defendant neglected to contest the proceedings despite being properly served. 

Sun Pharma has petitioned the court for a permanent injunction and other relief, citing long-standing statutory and commercial rights to its trademarks. The company proved that PEPFIZ has been registered since 1991 and in use since 2004, whilst MINOZ has been in continuous use since 2003 in pharmaceutical and related categories. Sun Pharma recorded yearly sales of ₹22.6 million under PEPFIZ and ₹216 million under MINOZ in FY 2023-24, indicating the brands' commercial relevance and goodwill. 

The Court noticed that Biodeal Pharmaceuticals, founded in 2005, manufactured and marketed medicines under the name PEPFIX-DSR, which was determined to be visually, phonetically, and structurally identical to PEPFIZ. A similar conclusion was made with regard to MINOZ and MINOZIL. Justice Karia described the case as a "triple identity", in which the rival marks, product category, trade routes, and consumer base were all similar. 

The Local Commissioner's report dated December 9, 2024, which documented the seizure of nearly 19,000 infringing pharmaceutical items and promotional leaflets from Biodeal's premises, played a significant role in the decision. The Court observed that such widespread infringement reflected purposeful and dishonest behaviour aimed at capitalising on Sun Pharma's established goodwill. 

Given Biodeal's failure to file a written statement or reject the plaintiff's evidence, the Court accepted Sun Pharma's pleadings and papers as admitted. It determined that the ongoing use of the challenged marks constituted a severe danger of consumer confusion, brand trust erosion, and dilution of Sun Pharma's reputation in the pharmaceutical sector. 

Sun Pharma elected not to seek damages, but the court granted a permanent injunction and permitted the collection of litigation expenses. The matter has been scheduled to be heard by the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on February 4, 2026, for cost assessment.