Trademark Tug-of-War: Court Rules Descriptive Terms Are Free for All

Trademark Tug-of-War: Court Rules Descriptive Terms Are Free for All. The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently made a significant decision in a trademark dispute between Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. and Leeford Healthcare Ltd. The case was about the names of energy products sold by the two companies. Zydus sells a popular product called Glucon-D, while Leeford sells products named Glucose-D, Glucose-C, and Glucospoon-D. Zydus claimed that Leeford’s product names were too similar to its own, which could confuse consumers. Zydus asked the court to give interim relief a temporary order to stop Leeford from using these names until the final judgment. However, the court denied this request, stating that words like “glucose” are descriptive, meaning they only describe the ingredient in the product, and therefore no company can have exclusive rights over them.
Background of the Case 
Zydus Wellness has been selling Glucon-D, a glucose-based energy drink that provides instant energy, especially for children and adults. The product is well-known in India and has a strong market presence. Glucon-D is often associated with providing quick energy and contains glucose and certain vitamins that help maintain energy levels during the day.
Leeford Healthcare, on the other hand, sells similar products under the names Glucose-D, Glucose-C, and Glucospoon-D. Zydus claimed that these names were too close to Glucon-D, which might confuse customers into thinking that Leeford’s products were made by Zydus or connected to Zydus in some way. Zydus filed a lawsuit in 2025 seeking a permanent injunction to stop Leeford from using these names, as well as damages and recognition that its trademark is “well-known.”
Additionally, Zydus sought interim relief, which is a temporary court order meant to protect a party from harm while the main case is still being decided. Zydus argued that allowing Leeford to continue using the similar names would cause irreparable damage to its brand.
Relevant Sections of the Trademarks Act, 1999
Section 9(1)(b) – Descriptive Words Cannot Be Protected
Section 9(1)(b) states that trademarks that directly describe the nature, quality, or ingredients of a product cannot be given exclusive protection. In this case, words like “glucose” and “gluco” are descriptive because they refer to the main ingredient of the product. Therefore, Zydus cannot stop other companies from using such common descriptive words.
Section 17 – Effect of Registration and Disclaimers
If a trademark registration includes a disclaimer, the owner cannot claim exclusive rights over that part of the mark. Zydus had a disclaimer on the words “gluco/glucose.” The Court noted that since Zydus itself accepted these words as non-exclusive, it cannot prevent Leeford from using similar terms.
Section 29(2) – Likelihood of Confusion
This section applies when a similar mark is used for similar goods and may cause confusion among consumers. Although Zydus argued that “Glucon-D” and “Glucose-D” could confuse buyers, the Court found that the packaging, colour scheme, and overall presentation of the products were sufficiently different. Therefore, confusion was unlikely.
Section 29(4) – Protection for Well-Known Trademarks
Well-known trademarks receive broader protection, even for different goods. Zydus claimed that Glucon-D is a well-known brand. However, because “glucose” is a descriptive word, the Court held that the brand cannot use this section to stop others from using common descriptive terms.
Section 29(9) – Phonetic or Conceptual Similarity
Under this section, two marks can be considered similar even if they look different, as long as they sound similar or create a similar idea. While “Glucon-D” and “Glucose-D” may sound somewhat alike, the Court said that descriptive words cannot be monopolized, and the overall product impression was different. So, this section did not support Zydus strongly.
Section from the Commercial Courts Act, 2015
Section 12A – Mandatory Pre-Litigation Mediation
Before filing a commercial lawsuit, parties must attempt mediation, unless the case involves urgent relief. Zydus waited nearly two years after knowing about Leeford’s products and still skipped mediation. The Court held that there was no urgency, and this made Zydus’s request for interim relief even weaker.
Key Issue Before the Court
The key legal question in this case was about the word “glucose.” Zydus claimed that “Glucon-D” is a well-known brand and that the use of similar words like “Glucose-D” by Leeford could mislead consumers. However, Leeford argued that “glucose” is a common descriptive word that refers to the main ingredient of the product. According to Leeford, no company should have exclusive rights over such common words.
The court also examined the fact that Zydus’s own trademark registration included a disclaimer on the word “gluco” or “glucose.” A disclaimer in a trademark registration shows that the company itself has accepted that the term is descriptive and cannot claim exclusive rights over it. This weakened Zydus’s argument that Leeford’s use of “glucose” would infringe its trademark.
Court Procedure and Mediation
Under Indian law, especially in commercial disputes, parties are required to attempt mediation before filing a lawsuit in court, unless there is a real urgency that cannot wait. Mediation is a process where both parties try to reach an agreement with the help of a neutral mediator.
In this case, Zydus was aware of Leeford’s products in April 2023, but the lawsuit was only filed in 2025. The court noted that this delay indicated there was no immediate urgency that justified skipping mediation. Because Zydus did not attempt mediation, the court considered that there was no strong reason to grant temporary relief, which is usually only given when urgent harm is proven.
Court’s Decision on Interim Relief
The court considered several important points before making its decision:

Descriptive Words Cannot Be Owned: The court explained that “glucose” is simply the chemical name for sugar. It describes the product and cannot be claimed by any one company. This means that other companies are free to use the word in their product names.

Disclaimers Matter: Zydus itself had a disclaimer in its trademark registration for “gluco” or “glucose.” This meant that even Zydus acknowledged that it cannot claim exclusive rights over these words.

Risk of Consumer Confusion: The court looked at the overall presentation of the products, including logos, packaging, and design. It concluded that Leeford’s products were different enough from Glucon-D that ordinary consumers are unlikely to be confused.

Balance of Convenience: Courts often consider which party would be more affected if temporary relief is granted. In this case, stopping Leeford from selling its products would harm their business. Meanwhile, Zydus did not provide enough proof of immediate harm. Therefore, the court decided it was more reasonable not to interfere at this stage.

Because of these reasons, the court denied Zydus’s request for interim relief, allowing Leeford to continue selling its products under the same names while the main case is ongoing.
Importance of the Judgment
This judgment is significant for several reasons:

Descriptive Words Are Free: The ruling makes it clear that common words describing the ingredients of a product, such as “glucose,” cannot be monopolized by a single company. This protects fair competition and prevents large companies from blocking smaller competitors from using honest descriptions.

Mediation is Mandatory: The judgment highlights the importance of mediation before filing commercial lawsuits. Companies cannot skip this step unless there is a true emergency.

Brand Strategy Matters: For companies like Zydus, this ruling is a reminder that relying on descriptive words in brand names is risky. To protect their brand, companies need to focus on unique names, creative logos, and distinct packaging that sets their product apart.

Fair Competition is Promoted: This decision encourages smaller companies to use descriptive words honestly, without fear of being blocked by larger brands that claim trademark rights over common words.

Risks for Zydus
The judgment also presents some challenges for Zydus:

Brand Dilution: If other companies use similar names like Glucose-D or Glucose-C, the uniqueness of Glucon-D may weaken over time.

Protection Challenges: Zydus may need to emphasize other elements of its brand, such as packaging, logo design, or advertising style, to make its products easily recognizable.

Delay in Legal Action: The court noted that Zydus waited a long time before filing the lawsuit and did not attempt mediation. This could affect the credibility of their claims in the ongoing case.

Despite these risks, Zydus still has the option to continue its lawsuit for permanent relief, but winning the final case may be more difficult because of these legal hurdles.
Similar Indian Case Laws
Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. v. Girnar Food & Beverages (P) Ltd.
Judgment Date: 26 April 2004
The Supreme Court held that descriptive and generic words cannot be monopolized unless they acquire a strong secondary meaning in the minds of consumers. This principle supports the idea that terms like “glucose,” which describe the nature of the product, must remain free for all traders to use.
Kellogg Co. v. Pravin Kumar Bhadabhai
Judgment Date: 2 August 1996
The Court held that if a trademark is registered with a disclaimer for a particular word, the owner cannot later claim exclusive rights over that disclaimed component. This directly applies to Zydus, which had a disclaimer for the words “gluco/glucose.”
Colgate Palmolive Co. v. Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd.
Judgment Date: 21 August 2003
The Delhi High Court stated that assessing confusion requires examining the entire packaging, color scheme, and trade dress not just the similarity of a single word. This supports the reasoning that Glucon-D and Leeford’s glucose products differ sufficiently in visual appearance.
Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
Judgment Date: 17 August 2022
The Supreme Court held that pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act is mandatory, except in cases of true urgency. Zydus’s delay of nearly two years and failure to undergo mediation weakened its request for interim relief.
Nestle India Ltd. v. Mood Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.
Judgment Date: 11 January 2010
The Delhi High Court ruled that common descriptive terms like “Café” cannot be monopolized. The Court stressed that allowing exclusivity over generic expressions would hinder fair competition, similar to how “glucose” cannot be exclusively owned.
Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Dabur India Ltd. (Sugar Free Case)
Judgment Date: 21 February 2008
The Court held that “Sugar Free” is a descriptive phrase and cannot be monopolized by any company. Since it describes the nature of the product, all traders are entitled to use it. This principle directly aligns with the Zydus–Leeford dispute, where “glucose” is a descriptive ingredient.
Conclusion
The Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision is a good example of how Indian trademark law tries to balance protecting brands and keeping competition fair. The court said that common descriptive words, like “glucose,” cannot belong to just one company because they describe the product instead of being a unique brand name.
The court also highlighted that companies should try mediation (talking and negotiating) before going to court, even big companies. While Zydus can continue its case, it will be hard to stop other companies from using similar descriptive names.
The ruling teaches companies an important lesson: to protect a brand, focus on unique names, logos, and packaging instead of common words. Courts want to make sure competition is fair and no one can monopolize generic terms.
In short, companies should act quickly, try mediation first, and create truly unique brand identities to avoid legal problems.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q1. What was the dispute between Zydus and Leeford about?
Ans. Zydus claimed that Leeford’s product names Glucose-D, Glucose-C, and Glucospoon-D were too similar to its own brand Glucon-D and could confuse consumers. They asked the Court to stop Leeford from using these names.
Q2. Why did the Court deny interim relief to Zydus?
Ans. The Court found that “glucose” is a descriptive word, Zydus had a disclaimer on this word in its trademark registration, and the packaging of both products looked different. Zydus also failed to prove any urgent harm.
Q3. What is a descriptive word in trademark law?
Ans. A descriptive word directly describes the ingredients, quality, or nature of a product. Such words like “glucose” cannot be monopolized by any one company.
Q4. Why was the mediation requirement important in this case?
Ans. Under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, parties must try mediation before filing a commercial suit unless there is real urgency. Since Zydus waited almost two years to file the case, the Court believed there was no urgency, making their interim request weak.
Q5. Does this judgment mean anyone can use the word “glucose”?
Ans. Yes, as long as the use is honest and descriptive. Common ingredient names cannot be owned exclusively by one brand.
Q6. Are Glucon-D and Glucose-D considered similar trademarks?
Ans. Phonetically, they are somewhat similar, but the Court held that descriptive terms cannot be monopolized and the overall look and packaging of the products were different enough to avoid consumer confusion.
Q7. What does this decision mean for Zydus?
Ans. Zydus will face challenges protecting the name Glucon-D because it contains a descriptive element. They may need to rely more on unique packaging, branding, and design to stand out.
Q8. Can Zydus still win the final case?
Ans. Yes, the main case is still ongoing. But because “glucose” is a descriptive term and Zydus skipped mediation, their chances are more difficult.
Q9. Does this ruling help smaller companies?
Ans. Yes. It prevents large brands from blocking the use of common descriptive words, supporting fair competition in the market.
Q10. What is the key takeaway from this case?
Ans. Brands should avoid relying on descriptive words and instead use distinctive names, logos, and packaging, which are easier to protect legally.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently made a significant decision in a trademark dispute between Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. and Leeford Healthcare Ltd. The case was about the names of energy products sold by the two companies. Zydus sells a popular product called Glucon-D, while Leeford sells products named Glucose-D, Glucose-C, and Glucospoon-D. Zydus claimed that Leeford’s product names were too similar to its own, which could confuse consumers. Zydus asked the court to give interim relief a temporary order to stop Leeford from using these names until the final judgment. However, the court denied this request, stating that words like “glucose” are descriptive, meaning they only describe the ingredient in the product, and therefore no company can have exclusive rights over them.

Background of the Case

Zydus Wellness has been selling Glucon-D, a glucose-based energy drink that provides instant energy, especially for children and adults. The product is well-known in India and has a strong market presence. Glucon-D is often associated with providing quick energy and contains glucose and certain vitamins that help maintain energy levels during the day.

Leeford Healthcare, on the other hand, sells similar products under the names Glucose-D, Glucose-C, and Glucospoon-D. Zydus claimed that these names were too close to Glucon-D, which might confuse customers into thinking that Leeford’s products were made by Zydus or connected to Zydus in some way. Zydus filed a lawsuit in 2025 seeking a permanent injunction to stop Leeford from using these names, as well as damages and recognition that its trademark is “well-known.”

Additionally, Zydus sought interim relief, which is a temporary court order meant to protect a party from harm while the main case is still being decided. Zydus argued that allowing Leeford to continue using the similar names would cause irreparable damage to its brand.

Relevant Sections of the Trademarks Act, 1999

Section 9(1)(b) – Descriptive Words Cannot Be Protected

Section 9(1)(b) states that trademarks that directly describe the nature, quality, or ingredients of a product cannot be given exclusive protection. In this case, words like “glucose” and “gluco” are descriptive because they refer to the main ingredient of the product. Therefore, Zydus cannot stop other companies from using such common descriptive words.

Section 17 – Effect of Registration and Disclaimers

If a trademark registration includes a disclaimer, the owner cannot claim exclusive rights over that part of the mark. Zydus had a disclaimer on the words “gluco/glucose.” The Court noted that since Zydus itself accepted these words as non-exclusive, it cannot prevent Leeford from using similar terms.

Section 29(2) – Likelihood of Confusion

This section applies when a similar mark is used for similar goods and may cause confusion among consumers. Although Zydus argued that “Glucon-D” and “Glucose-D” could confuse buyers, the Court found that the packaging, colour scheme, and overall presentation of the products were sufficiently different. Therefore, confusion was unlikely.

Section 29(4) – Protection for Well-Known Trademarks

Well-known trademarks receive broader protection, even for different goods. Zydus claimed that Glucon-D is a well-known brand. However, because “glucose” is a descriptive word, the Court held that the brand cannot use this section to stop others from using common descriptive terms.

Section 29(9) – Phonetic or Conceptual Similarity

Under this section, two marks can be considered similar even if they look different, as long as they sound similar or create a similar idea. While “Glucon-D” and “Glucose-D” may sound somewhat alike, the Court said that descriptive words cannot be monopolized, and the overall product impression was different. So, this section did not support Zydus strongly.

Section from the Commercial Courts Act, 2015

Section 12A – Mandatory Pre-Litigation Mediation

Before filing a commercial lawsuit, parties must attempt mediation, unless the case involves urgent relief. Zydus waited nearly two years after knowing about Leeford’s products and still skipped mediation. The Court held that there was no urgency, and this made Zydus’s request for interim relief even weaker.

Key Issue Before the Court

The key legal question in this case was about the word “glucose.” Zydus claimed that “Glucon-D” is a well-known brand and that the use of similar words like “Glucose-D” by Leeford could mislead consumers. However, Leeford argued that “glucose” is a common descriptive word that refers to the main ingredient of the product. According to Leeford, no company should have exclusive rights over such common words.

The court also examined the fact that Zydus’s own trademark registration included a disclaimer on the word “gluco” or “glucose.” A disclaimer in a trademark registration shows that the company itself has accepted that the term is descriptive and cannot claim exclusive rights over it. This weakened Zydus’s argument that Leeford’s use of “glucose” would infringe its trademark.

Court Procedure and Mediation

Under Indian law, especially in commercial disputes, parties are required to attempt mediation before filing a lawsuit in court, unless there is a real urgency that cannot wait. Mediation is a process where both parties try to reach an agreement with the help of a neutral mediator.

In this case, Zydus was aware of Leeford’s products in April 2023, but the lawsuit was only filed in 2025. The court noted that this delay indicated there was no immediate urgency that justified skipping mediation. Because Zydus did not attempt mediation, the court considered that there was no strong reason to grant temporary relief, which is usually only given when urgent harm is proven.

Court’s Decision on Interim Relief

The court considered several important points before making its decision:

Descriptive Words Cannot Be Owned: The court explained that “glucose” is simply the chemical name for sugar. It describes the product and cannot be claimed by any one company. This means that other companies are free to use the word in their product names.
Disclaimers Matter: Zydus itself had a disclaimer in its trademark registration for “gluco” or “glucose.” This meant that even Zydus acknowledged that it cannot claim exclusive rights over these words.
Risk of Consumer Confusion: The court looked at the overall presentation of the products, including logos, packaging, and design. It concluded that Leeford’s products were different enough from Glucon-D that ordinary consumers are unlikely to be confused.
Balance of Convenience: Courts often consider which party would be more affected if temporary relief is granted. In this case, stopping Leeford from selling its products would harm their business. Meanwhile, Zydus did not provide enough proof of immediate harm. Therefore, the court decided it was more reasonable not to interfere at this stage.

Because of these reasons, the court denied Zydus’s request for interim relief, allowing Leeford to continue selling its products under the same names while the main case is ongoing.

Importance of the Judgment

This judgment is significant for several reasons:

Descriptive Words Are Free: The ruling makes it clear that common words describing the ingredients of a product, such as “glucose,” cannot be monopolized by a single company. This protects fair competition and prevents large companies from blocking smaller competitors from using honest descriptions.
Mediation is Mandatory: The judgment highlights the importance of mediation before filing commercial lawsuits. Companies cannot skip this step unless there is a true emergency.
Brand Strategy Matters: For companies like Zydus, this ruling is a reminder that relying on descriptive words in brand names is risky. To protect their brand, companies need to focus on unique names, creative logos, and distinct packaging that sets their product apart.
Fair Competition is Promoted: This decision encourages smaller companies to use descriptive words honestly, without fear of being blocked by larger brands that claim trademark rights over common words.

Risks for Zydus

The judgment also presents some challenges for Zydus:

Brand Dilution: If other companies use similar names like Glucose-D or Glucose-C, the uniqueness of Glucon-D may weaken over time.
Protection Challenges: Zydus may need to emphasize other elements of its brand, such as packaging, logo design, or advertising style, to make its products easily recognizable.
Delay in Legal Action: The court noted that Zydus waited a long time before filing the lawsuit and did not attempt mediation. This could affect the credibility of their claims in the ongoing case.

Despite these risks, Zydus still has the option to continue its lawsuit for permanent relief, but winning the final case may be more difficult because of these legal hurdles.

Similar Indian Case Laws

Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. v. Girnar Food & Beverages (P) Ltd.

Judgment Date: 26 April 2004

The Supreme Court held that descriptive and generic words cannot be monopolized unless they acquire a strong secondary meaning in the minds of consumers. This principle supports the idea that terms like “glucose,” which describe the nature of the product, must remain free for all traders to use.

Kellogg Co. v. Pravin Kumar Bhadabhai

Judgment Date: 2 August 1996

The Court held that if a trademark is registered with a disclaimer for a particular word, the owner cannot later claim exclusive rights over that disclaimed component. This directly applies to Zydus, which had a disclaimer for the words “gluco/glucose.”

Colgate Palmolive Co. v. Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd.

Judgment Date: 21 August 2003

The Delhi High Court stated that assessing confusion requires examining the entire packaging, color scheme, and trade dress not just the similarity of a single word. This supports the reasoning that Glucon-D and Leeford’s glucose products differ sufficiently in visual appearance.

Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd.

Judgment Date: 17 August 2022

The Supreme Court held that pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act is mandatory, except in cases of true urgency. Zydus’s delay of nearly two years and failure to undergo mediation weakened its request for interim relief.

Nestle India Ltd. v. Mood Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.

Judgment Date: 11 January 2010

The Delhi High Court ruled that common descriptive terms like “Café” cannot be monopolized. The Court stressed that allowing exclusivity over generic expressions would hinder fair competition, similar to how “glucose” cannot be exclusively owned.

Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Dabur India Ltd. (Sugar Free Case)

Judgment Date: 21 February 2008

The Court held that “Sugar Free” is a descriptive phrase and cannot be monopolized by any company. Since it describes the nature of the product, all traders are entitled to use it. This principle directly aligns with the Zydus–Leeford dispute, where “glucose” is a descriptive ingredient.

Conclusion

The Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision is a good example of how Indian trademark law tries to balance protecting brands and keeping competition fair. The court said that common descriptive words, like “glucose,” cannot belong to just one company because they describe the product instead of being a unique brand name.

The court also highlighted that companies should try mediation (talking and negotiating) before going to court, even big companies. While Zydus can continue its case, it will be hard to stop other companies from using similar descriptive names.

The ruling teaches companies an important lesson: to protect a brand, focus on unique names, logos, and packaging instead of common words. Courts want to make sure competition is fair and no one can monopolize generic terms.

In short, companies should act quickly, try mediation first, and create truly unique brand identities to avoid legal problems.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1. What was the dispute between Zydus and Leeford about?

Ans. Zydus claimed that Leeford’s product names Glucose-D, Glucose-C, and Glucospoon-D were too similar to its own brand Glucon-D and could confuse consumers. They asked the Court to stop Leeford from using these names.

Q2. Why did the Court deny interim relief to Zydus?

Ans. The Court found that “glucose” is a descriptive word, Zydus had a disclaimer on this word in its trademark registration, and the packaging of both products looked different. Zydus also failed to prove any urgent harm.

Q3. What is a descriptive word in trademark law?

Ans. A descriptive word directly describes the ingredients, quality, or nature of a product. Such words like “glucose” cannot be monopolized by any one company.

Q4. Why was the mediation requirement important in this case?

Ans. Under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, parties must try mediation before filing a commercial suit unless there is real urgency. Since Zydus waited almost two years to file the case, the Court believed there was no urgency, making their interim request weak.

Q5. Does this judgment mean anyone can use the word “glucose”?

Ans. Yes, as long as the use is honest and descriptive. Common ingredient names cannot be owned exclusively by one brand.

Q6. Are Glucon-D and Glucose-D considered similar trademarks?

Ans. Phonetically, they are somewhat similar, but the Court held that descriptive terms cannot be monopolized and the overall look and packaging of the products were different enough to avoid consumer confusion.

Q7. What does this decision mean for Zydus?

Ans. Zydus will face challenges protecting the name Glucon-D because it contains a descriptive element. They may need to rely more on unique packaging, branding, and design to stand out.

Q8. Can Zydus still win the final case?

Ans. Yes, the main case is still ongoing. But because “glucose” is a descriptive term and Zydus skipped mediation, their chances are more difficult.

Q9. Does this ruling help smaller companies?

Ans. Yes. It prevents large brands from blocking the use of common descriptive words, supporting fair competition in the market.

Q10. What is the key takeaway from this case?

Ans. Brands should avoid relying on descriptive words and instead use distinctive names, logos, and packaging, which are easier to protect legally.