Drawing the Line at Letters: The Delhi High Court on Descriptive Marks in Pharma

In the case of Alkem Laboratories Limited v. Prevego Healthcare and Research Private Limited,[1] the Delhi High Court, delivered a significant judgment on January 17, 2026, revisiting the scope of trade mark protection over common alphabetic expressions in the pharmaceutical industry.

The Plaintiff, Alkem Laboratories Limited, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, claimed use of the marks

and

in respect of multivitamin and nutraceutical preparations since the year 1998 and 2008, respectively. The Plaintiff also contended that its marks had acquired substantial goodwill and distinctiveness in the Indian market and that it had adopted variants of the mark “A TO Z”, wherein “A TO Z” formed the essential and dominant element of the mark. Furthermore, the Plaintiff claimed copyright over “A TO Z” artistic works. The Plaintiff also contended that it had launched a product under the mark “A TO Z NS NEW BLISTER STRIP” in a red colour rectangular blister strip. Images of the Plaintiff’s products have been provided in the table below.

The Defendant, Prevego Healthcare and Research Private Limited, began marketing of pharmaceutical tablets under the mark

/ “MULTIVEIN AZ” (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned mark”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff aggrieved by such use, instituted a suit for trademark infringement, passing off and copyright infringement, alleging that the presence of ‘AZ’ in the impugned mark was deceptively similar to its “A TO Z” family of marks and that the impugned mark was being used for identical goods i.e., for health supplements.

Comparison of the Plaintiff’s product and Defendant’s product has been provided below:

Plaintiff’s product	Defendant’s product

An ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted in January 2025, restraining the Defendant from using the impugned mark as the Court held that there was an absolute visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarity between the competing marks and trade dress.

The Court in its January 2026 order, centred on whether this interim protection ought to continue. It was the Plaintiff’s argument that “A TO Z” was the essential and dominant part of its mark and that the use of “AZ” by the Defendant created phonetic and conceptual similarity. Further, given that both parties operated in the pharmaceutical sector, the Plaintiff stressed that even minimal confusion could have public health consequences. The Defendant, on the other hand, contended that the marks must be compared as a whole and that “MULTIVEIN” was the dominant feature of its mark. It further argued that no trader can claim monopoly over common letters of the English alphabet and that ‘A TO Z’ in the context of multivitamins is descriptive of completeness, signifying a product that covers all vitamins from ‘A to Z’. Moreover, the Defendant contended that the Plaintiff failed to obtain any registration for the word mark “A TO Z” and its registration for the device mark “A TO Z” in the relevant class i.e., 5, has been opposed.

The Court in the January 2026 order vacated the ex parte injunction and refused to grant interim relief to the Plaintiff on the following grounds:

1. Reliance on Anti-Dissection Rule

The Court relied on the anti-dissection rule as well as Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 to conclude that the marks of the parties were not deceptively similar. While it was acknowledged that both the marks comprise the terms ‘A’ and ‘Z’, the addition of the term ‘Multivein’ was held to significantly alter the overall sound and rhythm of the impugned mark. Moreover, the Court also considered the differences in the colour scheme of the packaging of the products of both parties. As regards the applicability of Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Court held, “19. when a trade mark consists of several matters, its registration shall confer on the proprietor exclusive right to use the trade mark taken as a whole. Considering that the Plaintiff has no exclusive right over the letters ‘A’ and ‘Z’, there is no deceptive similarity between the Plaintiff’s marks and the impugned mark.” 

2. No Monopoly over Common Alphabetical Expressions

The Court, secondly, addressed the broader doctrinal issue of monopolisation of alphabets. The expression “A TO Z”, particularly in relation to multivitamin supplements, was considered prima facie descriptive of the products’ comprehensive nature. Since the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate strong evidence of acquired distinctiveness of its marks during the interim stage, it could not monopolise a descriptive or generic expression.

3. Equitable Nature of Interim Injunctions and Duty of Full Disclosure

An additional factor that the Court weighed in was the equitable nature of interim relief. It was noted that certain aspects of the Plaintiff’s trade mark prosecution history had not been fully disclosed at the time of obtaining the ex parte injunction as the Plaintiff failed to disclose that its registration for the device mark “A TO Z” in the relevant class i.e., 5, has been under opposition since 2007. Since injunctions are discretionary and equitable remedies, suppression or non-disclosure of material facts disentitles a party from such protection. 

4. Limited Scope of Copyright Protection in Artistic works

Regarding the Copyright claim, the Court clarified that protection of artistic work in a label or device mark does not translate into a monopoly over generic alphabetic combinations used independently by others. The Court observed that while the Plaintiff may claim copyright in the specific artistic works, such protection cannot be stretched to restrain the Defendant from using alphabetic elements in a different commercial and visual context. Thus, the copyright claim did not justify the continuation of the interim relief.

This order is significant as the comparison of the marks in question was not confined merely to similarity of certain letters or components, but extended to the overall assessment of marks as a whole and the commercial context in which they are used. While Courts traditionally apply a stricter standard in cases involving medical product due to public health concerns, this decision underscores that such caution does not override foundational principles of trade mark law. Distinctiveness remains central and common descriptive expressions cannot automatically command exclusivity. This ruling reinforces limits on overboard trade mark claims and affirms that the law strikes balance between protecting goodwill and preserving fair competition.

Prabhsimran Kaur

Senior Associate

prabhsimran@iprattorneys.com

[1] CS (COMM) 84/2025