UPSC Mains Current Affairs for 28 March 2026

Ozempic vs Olymviq Latest News

• Novo Nordisk, the Danish pharma company behind the popular drug Ozempic (used for weight loss and diabetes), has been trying to protect its product from competition. 
• After failing to win patent infringement cases against Indian generic companies, it filed a trademark case in the Delhi High Court against Dr Reddy’s Laboratories.
• Novo Nordisk argued that Dr Reddy’s drug name “Olymviq” was too similar to “Ozempic” and could cause confusion. 
• Following this, Dr Reddy’s agreed in court to stop further manufacturing and selling the drug under the name “Olymviq” for now.

Dr Reddy’s Semaglutide Launch and Branding Strategy

• Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) launched its semaglutide drug under the brand name ‘Obeda’ on March 21, specifically for treating type-2 diabetes.
  • Semaglutide is a medicine used to treat type 2 diabetes and is also prescribed for long-term weight management in people with obesity.
• DRL had plans to market the same drug under two other names: Olymviq; Mashlo. 
  • These were not disclosed during the initial announcement.

Trademark Applications and Legal Developments

• DRL had first applied for the ‘Olymviq’ trademark in July last year, but it faced objections. 
• Later, it filed fresh trademark applications recently and also applied for the logo earlier in March 2026, indicating continued efforts to secure the brand name.

Unclear Positioning of Olymviq

• While Novo Nordisk markets Ozempic specifically for weight loss, DRL has not clearly disclosed the intended use of its Olymviq brand — whether for diabetes, weight loss, or another condition. 
• The company has only stated that Olymviq is part of its broader semaglutide portfolio without further details.

Novo Nordisk’s Trademark Argument Against Dr Reddy’s

• Novo Nordisk told the Delhi High Court that Dr Reddy’s use of the name “Olymviq” infringes its “Ozempic” trademark. 
• It argued that “Ozempic” is a unique, invented word, and “Olymviq” is deceptively similar in sound, potentially causing confusion and unfairly leveraging its brand.

Deceptively Similar Trademarks in Pharmaceuticals

• The Supreme Court laid down key principles to assess “deceptive similarity” in drug trademarks in the 2001 Cadila Healthcare case (Falcigo vs Falcitab). 
• It rejected the argument that prescription-only drugs are less likely to cause confusion, noting that even small mistakes in medicines can have serious health consequences.

Stricter Standards for Drug Trademarks

• Recognising that “drugs are poisons, not sweets,” the Court set a lower threshold for confusion in pharmaceutical trademarks compared to other goods. 
• It highlighted India’s varied healthcare infrastructure and the risk of human error, making strict safeguards necessary.
• The Court established criteria such as phonetic similarity, visual resemblance, and similarity in the nature and use of drugs to assess whether trademarks could cause confusion among consumers or healthcare providers.

Continued Judicial Application

• Courts have consistently followed the Cadila ruling. In 2023, the Bombay High Court reiterated that even the slightest chance of confusion in medicinal products is sufficient to restrict the use of a similar trademark.

What is Permissible in Drug Trademarks

• Under Section 13 of the Trademarks Act, International Non-Proprietary Names (INNs)—standard global names for drug ingredients—cannot be monopolised, as they are generic and non-proprietary in nature.
• Use of INN-Derived Names - Pharmaceutical companies are allowed to derive brand names from INNs, provided the names are clearly distinguishable and not deceptively similar to existing trademarks.
• Judicial Interpretation and Example - In a 2022 Delhi High Court case (Letroz vs Letero), both derived from the INN “Letrozole,” the court ruled there was no deceptive similarity. It noted that specialised doctors, like oncologists, are unlikely to confuse such drugs despite similar prefixes.

Novo Nordisk’s Fight to Protect Its Semaglutide Portfolio

• Novo Nordisk’s drugs Ozempic and Wegovy have driven strong global sales, but the company now faces declining growth due to the expiry of patent protections in several countries, including India.
• The company has filed multiple cases in India accusing generic manufacturers, including Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL), of patent infringement. 
• However, it has seen limited success. Courts allowed DRL to manufacture and export generic semaglutide, and this decision was upheld by the Delhi High Court shortly before the patent expired.
• Novo Nordisk is also facing legal challenges to the validity of its now-expired patent for injectable semaglutide, further weakening its position in India.
  • With injectable patent protection expired, Novo Nordisk is now focusing on protecting its oral semaglutide drug, Rybelsus, launched in India in December 2025 just months before patent expiry.
• In a related case, DRL assured the Delhi High Court that its tablet formulation does not fall within the patented range of Rybelsus, as the composition differs in terms of salts used, potentially avoiding infringement.

Source: IE