1. Temporary injunction — Deceptive similarity of trade marks — Appeal against interim order under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 17053
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ
Noviets Pharma – Appellant
Versus
Novartis AG – Respondent
FAO(OS) (COMM) 143/2026 | CM APPL. 35368/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Davesh Vashishtha, Himanshu Khulbe, Ashish
For the Respondents: Hemant Singh, Mamta Rani Jha, Pragya Jain, Anjeeta Rani, Diksha
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Davesh Vashishtha, Himanshu Khulbe, Ashish
For the Respondents: Hemant Singh, Mamta Rani Jha, Pragya Jain, Anjeeta Rani, Diksha
The court upheld an interim injunction against the use of the mark 'Noviets', finding it deceptively similar to the well-known pharmaceutical mark 'Novartis', emphasizing that a stricter standard of similarity applies to medicinal products to protect public health.
Headnote:(A) Trademark Infringement - Deceptive Similarity - Comparison of marks - When marks are visually and phonetically similar and target the same consumer base, a mere likelihood of confusion is sufficient to establish infringement. (Para 5.6, 37)
(B) Pharmaceutical Products - Standard of Care - A stricter approach must be adopted by Courts in pharmaceutical trademark cases as confusion between medicines can have serious or life-threatening consequences, involving significant public interest. (Para 5.8, 35)
(C) Composite Marks - Dominant Feature - While marks are generally compared as a whole, the presence of a dominant feature (such as the prefix 'NOV') in a well-known mark can lead to a finding of deceptive similarity, especially when the adoption is deemed dishonest. (Para 5.12, 36)
(D) Interlocutory Injunction - Scope of Appellate Interference - An appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the court of first instance unless the discretion is shown to be arbitrary, capricious, perverse, or contrary to settled legal principles. (Para 39, 40)
Issues: Whether the mark 'Noviets' is deceptively similar to the well-known mark 'Novartis' and whether the interim injunction granted by the Single Judge warrants interference.
Result: Appeal dismissed; interim injunction upheld.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- intellectual property
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over deceptive similarity; appellant argued dissimilarity and no confusion; respondent argued prior adoption, goodwill, and likelihood of confusion. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 )
3. Marks compared as a whole; dominant feature 'NOV' considered; pharmaceutical marks require stricter approach; strong prima facie case of triple identity. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 )
4. Appellate court should not interfere with interlocutory discretion unless arbitrary, perverse, or contrary to settled legal principles. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 )
5. Appeal dismissed; impugned order upheld; findings prima facie and subject to final trial decision. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 )
6. What is the scope of appellate interference with an interim injunction order?
An appellate court will not interfere unless the discretion was exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely, or contrary to settled legal principles. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 )
7. Should marks be compared as a whole or dissected for deceptive similarity?
Marks must be compared in their entirety; dissection to find a common prefix is impermissible under Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. (Para 36 )
8. What standard applies to deceptive similarity in pharmaceutical trade marks?
A stricter approach is adopted because confusion between medicines can have serious or life-threatening consequences. (Para 35 )
9. Can a mark be considered generic or common to trade based on lack of evidence?
No; mere assertion or entries on the register do not establish that a mark is common to trade without evidence of actual commercial use by third parties. (Para 23 )
10. Does using a mark as a trade name shield against infringement or passing off?
No; use of a registered mark as part of a trade name for identical goods constitutes infringement under Section 29(5) of the Act. (Para 24 , 25 )
JUDGMENT
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
1. This appeal has been filed with the following prayers:
“a) Allow the present Appeal directed against the Impugned Order dated 28.02.2026 passed by the Ld. Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court in C.S. (COMM) No. 218 of 2024 titled Novartis AG & Ors. Vs. Noviets Pharma & Ors.;
b) Set aside the Impugned Order dated 28.02.2026 passed by the Ld. Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court in C.S. (COMM) No.218 of 2024 titled Novartis AG & Ors. Vs. Noviets Pharma & Ors.;”
2. In effect, this appeal lays a challenge to the order of the learned Single Judge in IA 5655/2024 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) in CS(COMM) 218/2014, wherein the respondents/plaintiffs have been granted a temporary injunction and the appellants/defendants have been injuncted from using the mark ‘NOVIETS’ as being deceptively similar to ‘NOVARTIS’. The marks of the parties as per the impugned judgment can be seen as under:-
3. The facts that are noted from the record are that the respondents/plaintiffs claim themselves to be leader in the healthcare industry and specialise in innovation through research and development. The respondents have their presence in India since 1947 through their predecessor in interest. The respondent no.2 is the Indian subsidiary of the respondent no. 1 firm whereas the respondent no.3 has been incorporated in the year 1997 for the primary purpose of marketing its products in India. The respondents created and adopted the mark in 1996 and claimed continuous user since then. The long usage of the mark has gained substantial goodwill over the years. The details of the registration of the marks of the respondents are as under:-
4. The respondents/plaintiffs have also given the sales figures over the years pertaining to respondent no. 2 effective from 2007-08 to 2022-23 as under:-
5. The findings of the learned Single Judge can be summarised as under:-
5.1 The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, at the very outset, dealt with the issue of territorial jurisdiction since the appellants/defendants contended that no cause of action arose in Delhi as they themselves are dealing with pharmaceuticals and veterinary products in localised offline markets in Begusarai and Patna in Bihar. It was also their contention before the learned Single Judge that the online listing of the products of appellants is merely passive and informative without any enabling mechanism for commercial transactions whereas the respondents had contended before the learned Single Judge that this Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the appellants are carrying on business from within the jurisdiction of this Court through the website of ‘IndiaMart’ and on the page of the IndiaMart website, the contact details of the appellants shows ‘Delhi’ as their place of business. The learned Single Judge was satisfied that the nature and extent of the appellants’ online activities were sufficient enough for this Court to entertain the suit.
5.2 On the issue of deceptive similarity, the learned Single Judge had noted that the marks of the respondents have attained distinctive character and have become identifiers to enable the goods of the respondents to be distinguished from those of the other parties. Goodwill has been established at a prima facie stage by the respondents through continuous and prolong usage of the mark ‘Novartis’.
5.3 The learned Single Judge came to a finding that the impugned marks are deceptively similar to the extent that they are visually and phonetically similar and target the same consumer base and the class of consumers is also similar. The impugned judgment notes that the appellants not only infringed the mark of the respondents but also tried to pass off their products as those of the respondents. The contention was that the mark ‘Noviets’ is being used as a trade name and not as a brand name and the same is being done
