Ozempic vs Olymviq: Why Novo Nordisk sued India’s Dr Reddy’s over weight loss product trademark

What was the product launched by Dr Reddy’s called?

DRL, on March 21, announced the launch of the semaglutide formulation under the brand name ‘Obeda’,  to be used for treating type-2 diabetes. What it did not announce, however, was that it planned to release the drug under two other brand names — Olymviq and Mashlo. Trademark registry records show that DRL first applied for the ‘Olymviq’ trademark in July last year. This was objected to. On March 23, DRL submitted two applications for the trademark, and another application on March 10 for the logo of Olymviq.

Novo Nordisk markets Ozempic for the sole purpose of weight loss. DRL, however, has not yet publicly revealed the purpose of the Olymviq-branded drug — diabetes type-2 or weight loss or any other ailment. The Indian drugmaker, in a statement Wednesday, said the ‘Olymviq’ brand is “part of our semaglutide portfolio” without disclosing more details.

What did Novo Nordisk argue in the Delhi High Court?

After DRL launched its generic semaglutide formulation under the brand name of ‘Obeda’, Novo Nordisk moved the Delhi High Court. It said that DRL has released its generic version of the injectable semaglutide under the branding of ‘Olymviq’, and accused the company of “trademark infringement” of the Ozempic brand.

Novo Nordisk’s key argument is this: Ozempic is an invented word, and not a derivative from a chemical name (say, the anti-allergy drug Montek deriving its name from the compound Montelukast). DRL, therefore, is attempting to play on the deceptively similar phonetic sound of ‘Ozempic’ with ‘Olymviq’, Novo Nordisk said.

‘Deceptively similar’ trademarks 

The Supreme Court has laid down the framework under which “deceptive similarity” of trademarks, especially for drugs, are to be tested against as early as 2001. This came in a landmark ruling in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd over the trademark of a malaria drug — Falcigo versus Falcitab.

A frequent defence, especially in trademark infringement suits flagging “deceptive similarity” among trade names, relating to scheduled drugs is that since these are only for sale subject to prescription, or only to hospitals or institutions, its dispensation is under strict and qualified watch, making deception or confusion unlikely.

The Supreme Court, however, cognisant that confusion in pharmaceutical products may result in physical harm — “drugs are poisons, not sweets” — had taken into account the ground realities of the country. It established a lower threshold of what qualified as potentially confusing or deceptive when it comes to trademarking in drugs, compared to other products or goods.

It had observed: “Varying infrastructure for supervision of physicians and pharmacists of medical profession in our country due to linguistic, urban, semi-urban and rural divide across the country and with high degree of possibility of even accidental negligence, strict measures to prevent any confusion arising from similarity of marks among medicines are required to be taken.”

Among the tests laid down were the degree of resembleness between the trademarks, including phonetic similarity, as well as the similarity in the nature, character and performance of the rival drug.

The Cadila judgment has been applied by various courts over the years. A Bombay High Court division bench ruled in 2023 that the “mere existence of the slightest probability of confusion in case of medicinal product marks, requires that the use of such mark be restrained”.

What is permissible? 

Section 13 of the Trademarks Act says that for drug trademarks, International Non-Proprietary Names (INN), which are unique, globally recognized generic names for a pharmaceutical substance or active ingredient, which identifies the active pharmaceutical ingredient, are non-proprietary in nature, and cannot be monopolised.

Deriving names from these INNs are permissible, as long as they are well distinguishable, and not deceptively similar to a user.

For example, in 2022, the Delhi High Court ruling on the trademark dispute over a cancer drug between Sun Pharma’s ‘Letroz’ and Hetero Healthcare Ltd’s ‘Letero’, both derived from the INN Letrozole, held that there is no deceptive similarity in the two.

It also however took into account the very specialised nature and prescription for the drug, noting: “An oncologist, who is an expert and who prescribes the medicines for the treatment of breast cancer, in our opinion, is not likely to get confused because the two drugs are being sold with a mark containing the same first three letters, that are, ‘LET’ when the same are admittedly derived from the INN ‘LETROZOLE…”

Novo Nordisk’s fight against patent expiry

The semaglutide portfolio has been a turning point for Novo Nordisk, with WeGovy and Ozempic driving its sales the past few years. This year, however, the Danish company forecast a drop in its sales, one of the reasons being the loss of patent protections across various jurisdictions globally.

Before Indian courts, the company is already embroiled in several suits where it has accused several Indian generic drugmakers of infringing its patent in India over semaglutide. So far it has had few wins, with a single judge in December clearing DRL to manufacture and export the semaglutide generic beyond Indian borders even though Novo Nordisk held a valid patent protection in India. This decision was again upheld by a division bench of the Delhi HC in March, mere weeks before the patent was set to expire.

The firm is also facing a challenge to the validity of the patent it had over the now-expired patent protection over the injectable semaglutide, by DRL.

Even as Novo Nordisk’s patent protection over semaglutide in its injectable form does not exist in India as on date, it is now moving court seeking to protect its patent in India over its oral semaglutide formulation, available in tablet form, branded as ‘Rybelsus’.

Novo Nordisk launched its blockbuster drug in the Indian market in December 2025, barely four months before its patent protection expired on March 20.

In a suit against DRL, alleging patent infringement of Rybelsus, DRL gave an undertaking on oath to the Delhi High Court on March 24 that the Indian drugmaker’s version of the tablet composition — comprising semaglutide and salts — does not fall within the patented range of salts of that of Rybelsus.