Novo Nordisk and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories' trademark clash over “Olymviq” shifted to stock fate, with an Indian court weighing sell-off versus relabeling risks, rejecting destruction and considering a limited sell-through. A final decision by the Delhi High Court remains pending.
The legal battle between Danish drugmaker Novo Nordisk and India’s Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories took a sharp turn on Friday, shifting from a trademark dispute to a high-stakes debate over the fate of life-saving diabetes drugs.The dispute began after Dr. Reddy’s launched a generic version of semaglutide under the brand name “Olymviq,” which Novo challenged for its phonetic similarity to “Ozempic” (see here).
Before the Delhi High Court, Dr. Reddy’s agreed to rebrand the drug as “Olymra.” The courtroom clash then zeroed in on what should happen to the existing stock already in the market.
Dr. Reddy’s sought a month to sell its current inventory under the “Olymviq” label. Novo opposed this, arguing the infringing stock must be destroyed or relabeled.
Novo also questioned Dr. Reddy’s conduct, accusing it of a stealth launch. Selling the existing stock would “allow him to benefit from his wrong,” said Novo's lawyer.
At the center of the dispute was whether the drug pens could safely be relabeled.
Dr. Reddy’s pushed back strongly, arguing the process is not as simple as it sounds. The labels are affixed with permanent adhesive and tampering could risk contamination. “Relabeling the pen could risk that the adhesive solution or solvent going inside the pen,” its lawyer cautioned.
The medicine is temperature-sensitive and prolonged handling outside controlled conditions could render it ineffective, the lawyer added. Cosmetic fixes could also backfire as a double-labeled product might raise fears of tampering among patients, the lawyer said.
Novo dismissed these concerns, calling the relabeling risk overstated. A technical expert said that the integrity of the product would not be at risk because the pens are inherently airtight.
“The solution is they can affix a sticker over the existing sticker. There is no need to remove the existing sticker,” Novo’s lawyer argued. “The manufacturing site is a fully controlled environment... there will be no damage to the product,” he said.
Novo’s legal team pressed the court to consider the ethics of the "quiet" launch, accusing Dr. Reddy’s of "launching under the table" and then pleading for mercy to sell infringing stock. "All that has to be done is this... you just need to put an overlay," they insisted, suggesting the Dr Reddy's other brands Obita or Masto could simply be stuck over the disputed Olymviq brand name.
Caught between competing risks, Delhi High Court Judge Jyoti Singh made it clear that destroying one of the world's most "blockbuster" drugs was "not in anyone's interest," expressing a reluctance to order a "medicine bonfire."
“I don't know if any of us sitting here would want this kind of quantity of diabetic insulin injectable to be destroyed,” she said, noting “the limited resources we have today.”
The court was equally cautious about relabeling, questioning whether merely a “sticker over” a pharmaceutical trademark risks a medical and legal fallout.
“Think of yourself going to a chemist... you open up a pen, it has two stickers. Who is going to buy it? We are dealing with diabetic patients,” the judge said.
Admitting it was “not equipped” to assess the medical risks of adhesives and solvents, the court leaned toward a pragmatic middle path — a limited “sell-through” period for existing stock without risky relabeling.
The court was leaning toward a "sell-through" period, allowing Dr. Reddy’s to liquidate existing stock manufactured prior to the dispute without the hazardous re-labeling process.
The key contours of the emerging resolution between Novo and Dr Reddy's on the trade dispute included no destruction of the existing stock, immediate halt on manufacturing under the disputed trademark and a short window to clear existing inventory.
“I think a litigation has come to an end,” Judge Singh said, praising a solution that prioritizes patient access over “a monetary claim.”
However, with both sides still divided on whether the stock should be sold, relabeled, or scrapped, Judge Singh said that she would find a solution to the final fate of the multimillion dollar inventory. The court order is awaited.
Please email editors@mlex.com to contact the editorial staff regarding this story, or to submit the names of lawyers and advisers.