The Delhi High Court on Monday said that any unsold stock of Dr Reddy’s Laboratories’ (DRL) semaglutide drug, currently being marketed as Olymviq, will be supplied to government hospitals after the expiry of the 30 days allowed to the company to clear its stocks. Government hospitals will be supplied with this stock in the presence of a Novo Nordisk representative, the court said. 

Recording a settlement before Justice Jyoti Singh, the court noted that DRL will discontinue the Olymviq mark and adopt a new brand name, Olymra. Under the terms, Dr Reddy’s, along with its directors, affiliates and associated entities, has undertaken to cease all manufacture, sale, distribution, promotion and commercial use of the disputed mark, across both online and offline platforms. The company has been allowed to liquidate its existing inventory in the open market for 30 days, following which, any remaining stock may be supplied to government hospitals in the presence of a Novo Nordisk representative.

In its order on March 27, the court also recorded that DRL will withdraw its pending trademark applications for Olymviq from the Trade Marks Registry, foregoing any claim to the disputed mark. The court clarified that the limited clearance window was granted in the public interest, given the drug’s use in diabetes treatment, and declined Novo Nordisk’s request to destroy or repackage the existing stock, observing that such measures could adversely affect patient access and may not be commercially viable.

The dispute arose after the expiry of Novo Nordisk’s patent on semaglutide, which opened the Indian market to generic versions. While DRL launched its injectable product under the Obeda brand, its attempt to use the Olymviq mark was challenged by Novo Nordisk on the grounds of phonetic similarity with its diabetes and weight-loss drug Ozempic, raising concerns of confusion. 

Pending adjudication, the court had restrained DRL from expanding sales under the disputed mark. It also acknowledged the concerns around existing inventory, with the company citing the drug’s temperature sensitivity in seeking time to exhaust stock, and Novo Nordisk opposing continued circulation.

Balancing trademark rights with public interest, Justice Singh observed that the destruction of an essential diabetes medication would be inappropriate, while also expressing doubts over the feasibility and safety of relabelling. Emphasising resource constraints, the court stressed that discarding usable medicines would not be prudent.