Delhi HC Rules English Alphabets Can't Be Monopolized: Rejects Alkem's Trademark Injunction Against Prevego

Introduction

In a significant ruling for intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical sector, the Delhi High Court has dismissed Alkem Laboratories Limited's plea for an interim injunction against Prevego Healthcare And Research Pvt Ltd, holding that the phrase "A TO Z" is descriptive and generic, incapable of exclusive monopolization. Justice Tejas Karia, in his judgment delivered on January 17, 2026, in Alkem Laboratories Limited v. Prevego Healthcare And Research Pvt Ltd [CS(COMM) 84/2025], emphasized that English alphabets like "A" and "Z" cannot be trademarked to prevent their use by others, particularly when the mark describes the comprehensive nature of multivitamin products. This decision vacates an ex-parte ad-interim order dated January 30, 2025, and underscores the limits of protection for descriptive marks absent proven secondary meaning.

The case, involving nutraceutical and pharmaceutical tablets, highlights ongoing tensions in India's trademark landscape, where established brands seek to shield well-known marks from alleged copycats. Alkem, a major player in the Indian pharma market since 1973, claimed infringement of its "A TO Z" and "A TO Z-NS" marks, used since 1998, by Prevego's "MULTIVEIN AZ" product launched in 2020. Prevego countered that its mark was distinct and honestly adopted. The ruling aligns with broader judicial trends limiting monopoly over common expressions, as seen in recent cases like the Madras High Court's upholding of opposition to the "Nandini" mark for non-dairy goods, reinforcing that even registered marks warrant scrutiny for potential confusion across product classes.

This decision has immediate implications for pharmaceutical companies relying on alphanumeric or descriptive branding, potentially encouraging more challenges to such marks and emphasizing the need for distinctiveness in labeling.

Case Background

Alkem Laboratories Limited, founded in 1973, is a prominent Indian pharmaceutical firm with a global footprint, specializing in research, manufacturing, and distribution of drugs and nutraceuticals across segments like gastro-intestinal, anti-infectives, and pain management. It boasts over 800 brands, six of which rank among India's top 100 pharmaceutical brands, and operates 19 manufacturing units serving more than 40 countries. Since 1998, Alkem has used the "A TO Z" device mark for multivitamin and multimineral supplements, registering variations in Classes 5 (pharmaceuticals), 29 (dietary supplements), and 30 (food products). These marks feature a stylized logo with intertwined "A" and "Z" letters and the word "TO" in a contrasting color, protected under both the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the Copyright Act, 1957, as artistic works.

The dispute arose in December 2024 when Alkem discovered Prevego's "MULTIVEIN AZ" tablets, a multivitamin-mineral product with antioxidants, marketed for health supplementation. Prevego, established in 2018, has grown rapidly to offer over 1,500 products through a nationwide network of 400-500 stockists, distributors, and sales teams. It claims honest adoption of "MULTIVEIN AZ" in August 2020, following registration of the word mark "MULTIVEIN" (Application No. 4742710) in Class 5, with additional applications for variants like "MULTIVEIN AZ" (No. 6799320) pending.

Alkem issued a cease-and-desist notice on December 27, 2024, alleging visual, phonetic, conceptual, and structural similarity between "MULTIVEIN AZ" and its marks, plus imitation of its yellow-dominated trade dress and logo. Prevego replied on January 20, 2025, denying infringement and highlighting the generic nature of "A TO Z." Alkem filed the suit on January 29, 2025, securing an ex-parte injunction on January 30, 2025, restraining Prevego from using the impugned mark or similar variants. Prevego sought vacation of the order via I.A. 6055/2025 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC, while Alkem pursued confirmation via I.A. 2537/2025 under Rules 1 and 2.

The procedural history included allowances for additional documents on August 8, 2025, and reserved judgment on November 12, 2025, after hearings. Notably, during interim proceedings on February 17, 2025, Alkem offered to drop claims for costs and damages if Prevego relinquished "AZ," allowing exhaustion of existing stock—a concession not ultimately pursued.

The core legal questions were: (1) Whether "A TO Z" qualifies as a distinctive mark entitled to protection against "MULTIVEIN AZ," or is it descriptive/generic? (2) Does the impugned mark deceptively imitate Alkem's device marks, logo, and trade dress, leading to infringement under Sections 29 and 30 of the Trade Marks Act, passing off, or copyright violation under the Copyright Act? (3) Has Alkem established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm for interim relief?

Arguments Presented

Alkem's counsel, led by Senior Advocate Darpan Wadhwa, argued that "A TO Z" is a coined, arbitrary mark exclusively associated with its products since 1998, backed by continuous use, substantial sales (e.g., Rs. 36,487 lakhs for "A TO Z" range in 2021-22), and advertising spends (Rs. 424 lakhs in 2017-18). They claimed registrations for device variants in multiple classes confer rights over the dominant "A TO Z" element, invoking prior user status under common law. Phonetic similarity ("A TO Z" vs. "AZ"), conceptual overlap (comprehensiveness in vitamins), and visual resemblance in packaging (yellow strips, logo placement) were highlighted as causing confusion among consumers, especially in pharmaceuticals where precision is critical.

Alkem contended that even if descriptive, the mark had acquired secondary meaning through market recognition, citing sales data and no third-party challenges. They alleged Prevego's 2020 adoption was dishonest, aiming to ride on Alkem's goodwill, and copied the trade dress (color scheme, layout) and stylized logo, infringing copyright. Precedents like Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories (AIR 1965 SC 980) were invoked for the deceptive similarity test, emphasizing essential features' copying despite packaging differences. In pharma cases, they referenced Novartis AG v. Crest Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (2009 SCC OnLine Del 4390), stressing stricter scrutiny due to public health risks from substandard imitations. Alkem dismissed third-party uses as insignificant and argued against dissecting marks, per Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Ltd. v. V-Guard Industries Ltd. (2024:DHC:1852-DB).

Prevego's Senior Advocate Arundhati Katju countered that "A TO Z" is a generic phrase denoting completeness, publici juris, and undeserving of monopoly, especially sans word-mark registration in Class 5. They emphasized "MULTIVEIN" as the dominant, coined element suggesting vascular nutrient delivery, rendering the overall mark conceptually distinct (network vs. range). Visual differences (red-orange scheme vs. Alkem's yellow; ribbon design vs. 3D boxy logo) and phonetic variance (longer "Multivein AZ" lacking "to") preclude confusion. Google searches showed "A TO Z" yielding unrelated results, proving no secondary meaning, per Godfrey Philips India Ltd. v. Girnar Food & Beverages (P) Ltd. ((2004) 5 SCC 257).

Prevego accused Alkem of concealing failed/abandoned Class 5 applications (e.g., No. 1270049 opposed since 2007; Nos. 750155, 816752 withdrawn/abandoned), third-party prior uses, and admissions before the Trademark Registry limiting protection to stylized form. Device marks protect wholes, not components like letters, per Section 17 Trade Marks Act's anti-dissection rule and Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1701). Copyright claims were baseless, as no protection exists for alphabets. Prevego offered to enlarge "MULTIVEIN" and shrink "AZ" to resolve, arguing balance of convenience favors it as a growing entity with vested rights from honest use since 2020. They cited Pankaj Goel v. Dabur India Ltd. (2008 SCC OnLine Del 1744) against barring suits despite minor third-party uses but stressed Alkem's suppressions bar equity, per S.K. Sachdeva v. Shri Educate Ltd. (2016 (65) PTC 614).

Legal Analysis

Justice Karia's reasoning centered on the descriptive nature of "A TO Z," rejecting Alkem's monopoly claim over English letters. The court applied the anti-dissection rule, evaluating marks holistically per Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, finding no deceptive similarity. "A TO Z" describes multivitamin comprehensiveness (vitamins A to Z), rendering it generic/publici juris, incapable of distinctiveness without secondary meaning—a threshold Alkem failed to prima facie establish despite sales figures, as Google results showed diverse, unrelated uses.

Precedents were pivotal. Pernod Ricard India (supra) barred dissecting marks, requiring overall impression assessment; here, "Multivein AZ" (with its vascular connotation) differed visually (stylized ribbon vs. intertwined letters), phonetically (no "to"), and conceptually from "A TO Z." Godfrey Philips (supra) denied protection to descriptive marks absent secondary meaning, aligning with the court's view that letters like "A-Z" can't be monopolized, especially post-Alkem's Registry admission limiting stylized protection. Kaviraj Pandit (supra)'s essential features test failed, as "Multivein" dominated, per Crompton Greaves (supra).

On prior use, Milmet Oftho Industries v. Allergan Inc. ((2004) 12 SCC 624) and Kia Wang v. Registrar of Trademarks (2023 SCC OnLine Del 5844) prioritized first market entrants, but only for similar marks—absent here. N. Ranga Rao v. Anil Garg (2005 SCC OnLine Del 1293) obligated second comers to avoid confusion, but Prevego's honest adoption and distinctiveness absolved it. Copyright analysis under the Copyright Act dismissed logo imitation, as protection covers artistic expression, not generic letters; trade dress differences (colors, fonts, layouts) negated claims, distinguishing from United Biotech Pvt. Ltd. v. Orchid Chemicals (ILA (2012) V Delhi 325), where label registration implied word protection— inapplicable sans Class 5 word-mark.

Alkem's concealments (failed applications, third-party uses) barred equity, per Raman Kwatra v. KEI Industries Ltd. (2023:DHC:000083), though not fatal to the suit per Pankaj Goel (supra). Pharma-specific risks ( Novartis AG , supra) were noted but unpersuasive without similarity. The court distinguished quashing vs. confirmation of injunctions, finding no prima facie case, balance favoring Prevego (market presence), and no irreparable harm to Alkem.

This analysis integrates news reports on the case, noting Prevego's contention that "A TO Z" lacks distinctiveness in Class 5, mirroring the judgment. For contrast, the Madras HC's recent upholding of Karnataka Milk Federation's opposition to "Nandini" for agarbattis (under Sections 9, 11 Trade Marks Act) shows stricter confusion prevention across dissimilar goods for well-known marks—unlike here, where descriptiveness prevailed.

Key Observations

The judgment is replete with incisive observations on trademark limits:

• On descriptiveness: "The Mark ‘A TO Z’ is descriptive in nature. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be allowed to monopolize the use of the letters ‘A’ and ‘Z’ by seeking exclusivity over the right to use the letters ‘A’ and ‘Z’. The use of letters of the English Language cannot be monopolized by the Plaintiff especially in light of the submission made by the Plaintiff before the Trade Marks Registry..."

• On holistic comparison: "The registration of the Device Mark is to be considered as a whole and while determining the deceptive similarity with another Trade Mark, both the Marks have to be examined as a whole by applying ‘anti-dissection rule’ rather than breaking the Marks into their component parts for comparison."

• On secondary meaning burden: "It is settled law that generic, descriptive and commonly used expressions, being publici juris , are incapable of attaining distinctiveness and / or serving as exclusive source identifiers so as to confer monopoly rights upon any party."

• On copyright scope: "Copyright Act entitles the proprietor of an Artistic Work to protection of its Artistic Work, however, it does entitle the Plaintiff to monopolize the use of the letters ‘A’ and ‘Z’ in any manner whatsoever."

• On equity: "The Plaintiff is not entitled to any equitable relief on account of concealment of material facts and making contrary assertions."

These quotes encapsulate the court's emphasis on public domain preservation in IP law.

Court's Decision

The Delhi High Court dismissed I.A. 2537/2025, denying interim injunction, and allowed I.A. 6055/2025, vacating the ex-parte order dated January 30, 2025. The operative portion states: "No case is made out for grant of interim injunction as prayed for in I.A. 2537/2025 and, accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. Consequently I.A. 6055/2025 is allowed and the ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted vide Order dated 30.01.2025 stands vacated. Both I.A. 2537/2025 and I.A. 6055/2025 stand disposed of."

Practically, Prevego may continue using "MULTIVEIN AZ," potentially enlarging "MULTIVEIN" as offered, without immediate restraint. For Alkem, this bars interim relief, pushing the suit to trial where secondary meaning evidence could be tested. Broader effects include heightened scrutiny for descriptive pharma marks (e.g., alphanumeric like "AZ" for azithromycin), urging brands toward more inventive naming to avoid publici juris pitfalls. It may spur Registry oppositions and influence future cases, like the ongoing "Nandini" disputes, by reinforcing that registration doesn't guarantee monopoly over common terms.

In the justice system, this promotes fair competition in a Rs. 50,000 crore nutraceutical market, preventing overreach while safeguarding public health via clear labeling. Legal practitioners must now advise clients on building secondary meaning through evidence beyond sales, and courts may cite this for similar IP battles, balancing innovation with access to descriptive language.