Alkem Laboratories Limited, established in 1973 and a major player in pharmaceuticals and nutraceuticals, adopted the coined marks 'A TO Z' in 1998 and 'A TO Z-NS' in 2008 for multivitamin supplements, claiming extensive use, sales over Rs. 34,000 lakhs in 2023-24, and registrations in Classes 5, 29, and 30, along with copyright in the stylized 'AZ' logo and trade dresses.
In December 2024, it discovered Prevego Healthcare and Research Pvt Ltd, founded in 2018 with over 1,500 products, using 'MULTIVEIN AZ' since August 2020 for similar nutraceuticals, prompting a cease-and-desist notice met with denial of similarity.
Plaintiff filed suit for trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off, securing ex parte interim injunction on January 30, 2025, restraining Defendant's use; Defendant sought vacation via IA 6055/2025.
Court reasoned that 'A TO Z' is descriptive and generic for multivitamins symbolizing completeness without secondary meaning, no monopoly on 'A' and 'Z'.
Marks not deceptively similar when viewed holistically under anti-dissection rule due to differences in structure, phonetics, colors, and addition of 'MULTIVEIN', no copyright infringement as styles distinct, and Plaintiff concealed material facts like opposed and abandoned applications disentitling equitable relief. Consequently, interim injunction application dismissed and ex parte order vacated.
Law Point:
Generic, descriptive, and commonly used expressions like 'A TO Z' are publici juris, incapable of distinctiveness or monopoly without secondary meaning: (Para 13-15).
Rival marks must be compared as a whole without dissection, considering overall impression including appearance, structure, and commercial impact: Pernod Ricard India (supra) (Para 17,22).
Device marks protect specific visual representation, not underlying words or letters in isolation: (Para 21).
Concealment of material facts, such as opposed trademark applications, disentitles plaintiff to equitable relief like interim injunction: (Para 26).
No copyright infringement where common elements like letters 'A' and 'Z' are stylized differently and overall impression distinct: (Para 27).
Case Title: Alkem Laboratories Vs Prevego Healthcare:17.01.2026:CS(COMM) 84/2025:2026:DHC:411: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia
[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]
[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]
No comments:
Post a Comment