* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgement delivered on: 17.01.2026 + CS(COMM) 84/2025 ALKEM LABORATORIES LIMITED .....Plaintiff versus PREVEGO HEALTHCARE AND RESEARCH PVT LTD .....Defendant Advocates who appeared in this case For the Plaintiff : Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Senior Advocate with Ms. Tusha Malhotra, Ms. Bhavya Chhabra and Ms. Rhea Bhalla, Advocates.

For the Defendant : Ms. Arundhati Katju, Senior Advocate with Mr. Siddharth Acharya, Mr. Udit Malik, Ms. Ritika Meena and Mr. Lakshay Sharma, Advocates. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

JUDGMENT

TEJAS KARIA, J I.A. 2537/2025 and I.A. 6055/2025

1. I.A. 2537/2025 is filed by the Plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) for grant of interim injunctionrestraininginfringementofTradeMark,Copyright,andpassingoff of the Trade Marks, ‘A TO Z/ ’, ‘ ’ and ‘A TO Z-NS’

(“Plaintiff’s Marks”), infringement of Copyright in the artistic work, ‘ ’ (“Plaintiff’s Logo”) and in the Trade Dresses ‘ ’, ‘ ’, ‘ ’, ‘ ’, ‘ ’, ‘ ’, ‘ ’, ‘ ’, ‘ ’ and ‘ ’ (“Plaintiff’s Trade Dress”). The Plaintiff is involved in the trade and manufacture of pharmaceutical products under Plaintiff’s Marks, Plaintiff’s Logo and

Plaintiff’s Trade Dress (“Plaintiff’s Products”).

2. I.A. 6055/2025 has been filed by the Defendant under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC for vacation of ex-parte ad-interim Order dated 30.01.2025. The Defendant is using the Mark, ‘MULTIVEIN AZ / ‘ ’ (“Impugned Mark”) for sale of pharmaceutical

tablets (“Defendant’s Product”).

PROCEDURALHISTORY

3. Vide Order dated 30.01.2025, the Defendant, its directors, partners or proprietors, representatives, principal officers, licensees, servants, agents, affiliates,distributors,successors,subsidiariesandallothersactingfor andon itsbehalfwererestrainedfrommarketing,packaging,selling,offeringforsale or distribution,exporting,advertising or otherwisedirectly or indirectly using or dealing in any products or goods bearing the Impugned Mark or any other mark that is identical or deceptively, confusingly, visually, phonetically or conceptually similar to the Plaintiff’s Marks, or containing any component thereof, whether as part of a trade mark or brand name, leading to infringement of the Plaintiff’s Marks, passing off of the Defendant’s Product as that of the Plaintiff, or infringement of the Plaintiff’s Logo or Plaintiff’s Trade Dress.

4. Vide Order dated 17.02.2025, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff does not object to the use of ‘MULTIVEIN’ by the Defendant and if the Defendant is willing to give up the use of ‘AZ’ from the Impugned Mark,the Plaintiffwill giveupits claimfor costs and damages. In the meanwhile, the Defendant was allowed to exhaust the already existing stock with the Impugned Mark.

5. Notice was issued in I.A. 6055/2025 on 06.03.2025. The Defendant filedI.A.10127/2025,seekingtoplaceonrecord additionaldocumentswhich areessentialtobeconsideredwhileadjudicatingthepresentApplications.I.A. 10127/2025 was allowed vide Order dated 08.08.2025 and the Defendant was allowed to place on record the additional documents with liberty to the Plaintiff to file additional documents and a note in relation to the additional documentsfiledbytheDefendant.On26.08.2025,thelearnedSeniorCounsel for the Defendant sought leave to file additional Written Submissions capturing the relevancy of the additional documents taken on record vide Orderdated08.08.2025.Accordingly,theDefendantsweregrantedtheliberty to file additional Written Submissions.

6. Vide Order dated 12.11.2025, after conclusion of arguments by the Parties, the judgment was reserved in these Applications. SUBMISSIONSONBEHALFOFTHEPLAINTIFF:

7. The learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff made the following submissions:

7.1. The Plaintiff was established in the year 1973 and is engaged in the business of research and development, manufacturing, marketing, distribution and selling of pharmaceuticals and nutraceutical products in India and in t