Delhi High Court Restrains Manufacture And Sale Of “Safe AQ”/“Safe Accu” Devices; Orders Takedown Of Listings In Trademark And Trade Dress Dispute Involving Chinese Medical Manufacturer
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Tejas Karia has temporarily restrained several Indian entities from manufacturing, marketing, or selling blood glucose test strips or other medical devices under the marks “Safe AQ” and “Safe Accu” after a Chinese medical device company objected to their use. The Court found that the defendants’ presentation and branding closely resembled the identifiers long used by the plaintiffs for their diagnostic products, creating a likelihood of consumer confusion. It accordingly directed the defendants to cease all infringing activities and ordered the disabling of online listings carrying the questioned products, noting that the marks and trade dress appeared to have been adopted without authorization and in a manner capable of misleading purchasers.
The plaintiffs, consisting of a foreign manufacturer of biosensing and diagnostic devices and its Indian subsidiary, initiated proceedings alleging unauthorized use of their marks and trade dress by the defendants. The plaintiffs’ products—including glucometers, glucose test strips, and related diagnostic devices—had been marketed in India using the marks “Safe Accu” and “Safe AQ,” along with a distinct red-and-white or blue-and-white packaging style described as the Subject Trade Dress. According to the plaintiffs, these identifiers had been in continuous use, with the Indian subsidiary marketing the products since 2016.
The defendants previously acted as distributors under an agreement executed in 2016, which permitted them to market the plaintiffs’ products without granting rights in the plaintiffs’ marks or packaging. The plaintiffs stated that the defendants later obtained registrations for “Safe AQ” and “Safe Accu” without authorization and continued commercial exploitation after the business relationship ended in 2021. Rectification petitions were filed by the plaintiffs challenging these registrations.
In June 2025, the plaintiffs reported receiving information that the defendants had launched blood glucose test strips using identical or near-identical packaging. The plaintiffs traced sales through various channels, including online platforms. The plaintiffs purchased an allegedly infringing test strip from an e-commerce portal, which was delivered in Delhi and bore the defendants’ manufacturing and marketing details. A comparison in the record detailed similarities between the plaintiffs’ packaging and the defendants’ products, including use of the “Safe AQ” mark, placement of images, slogans, and visual features.
The plaintiffs contended that copying of the Subject Trade Dress and Subject Marks constituted infringement and passing off, asserting that the similarities could mislead consumers. They further submitted that the defendants’ products were medical diagnostic devices requiring strict safety standards and that unauthorized manufacturing created health risks. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief to restrain further use of the marks, trade dress, and packaging.
The Court recorded that “the Plaintiffs are the prior and continuous user of the Subject Marks and the Subject Trade Dress extending over a considerable period of time.” It stated that the plaintiffs’ promotional efforts had resulted in “the acquisition of considerable reputation and goodwill, whereby the Subject Marks and the Subject Trade Dress have come to be identified exclusively with the Plaintiffs.”
The Court noted that a comparison of the products demonstrated that “the overall impression conveyed by the Defendants’ trade dress used on the Infringing Products is deceptively similar to that of the Subject Trade Dress.” It further stated that such imitation “is likely to lead consumers and members of the trade to assume that the Infringing Products originate from the Plaintiffs.” The Court observed that “the likelihood of confusion in the course of trade is therefore real and substantial.”
It recorded that the defendants had previously served as distributors, stating that they “were, therefore, aware of the Plaintiffs’ rights in respect of the Subject Marks and the Subject Trade Dress.” The Court observed that “the infringing use of the Subject Marks and the Subject Trade Dress by the Defendants, in these circumstances, appears to be devoid of bona fide.”
The Court stated that a prima facie case existed in favour of the plaintiffs, noting that “the Defendants’ infringing use of the Subject Marks and the Subject Trade Dress would result in dilution of distinctiveness and loss of consumer trust resulting in irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs.” It recorded that the balance of convenience lay with the plaintiffs.
The Court also referred to the material showing sale of allegedly infringing products on online platforms, noting the plaintiffs’ evidence regarding purchase and delivery in Delhi. It recorded that the defendants’ products bore marks and packaging features substantially similar to those described by the plaintiffs.
The Court directed that “the Defendants… are restrained from manufacturing, distributing, advertising, marketing, selling and offering for sale Blood Glucose Test Strip or any other medical devices under the Trade Dress ‘ ’ and Subject Marks ‘Safe AQ’ / ‘SAFE AQ’ and ‘Safe Accu’ / ‘SAFE ACCU’ and / or any other Marks and Trade Dress, which is visually indistinguishable from the Subject Trade Dress ‘ ’ and the Subject Marks.” The defendants are restrained from using the corporate name “‘SANCARA’, which is deceptively and confusingly similar to the Corporate Name ‘Sinocare’.”
The Court recorded that the plaintiffs must communicate the order to the specified e-commerce platforms, which “shall disable access to the URLs set out below within 72 hours of receipt of copy of this Order.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Plaintiffs: Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Ms. Aastha Sharma, Ms. Jahanvi Sharma
Case Title: M/s Changsha Sinocare Inc. & Anr. vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1188/2025
Bench: Justice Tejas Karia
