Summary
Alkem Laboratories Limited, one of India's largest pharmaceutical companies, sued Prevego Healthcare and Research Pvt. Ltd. for trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright infringement over Prevego's use of the mark 'MULTIVEIN AZ' in connection with nutraceutical tablets. Alkem claimed prior rights in its 'A TO Z' family of marks, used since 1998. The Delhi High Court refused the interim injunction, finding that 'A TO Z' is descriptive and generic in the context of multivitamin products, that the two marks are not deceptively similar when assessed as a whole, and that Alkem had concealed material facts about its own failed attempts to register 'A TO Z' in Class 5. The ruling is a significant reminder that prior use and commercial success cannot rescue a mark that is inherently descriptive of the goods it covers.
Background
When a company has spent more than two decades building one of India’s best-selling nutraceutical brands, it is tempting to treat the name itself as untouchable property. The question before the Delhi High Court in this case was whether that instinct survives contact with trademark law.
Alkem Laboratories Limited (“Alkem”), established in 1973, is among India’s largest pharmaceutical companies, with over 800 brands, 19 manufacturing units, and a presence in more than 40 countries. Alkem first adopted the mark ‘A TO Z’ in 1998 for its multivitamin and multimineral dietary supplement products and has since built it into a significant commercial franchise: the ‘A TO Z’ range generated revenues exceeding ₹34,000 lakhs in 2023–24 alone. The mark is registered as a stylised device mark in Classes 29 and 30, and in Class 5 for variants carrying suffixes such as ‘NS’.
Prevego Healthcare and Research Pvt. Ltd. (“Prevego”), incorporated in 2018, markets pharmaceutical and nutraceutical products under the mark ‘MULTIVEIN AZ’, which features a stylised ‘AZ’ logo alongside the word ‘MULTIVEIN’. Prevego claims to have adopted this mark honestly in August 2020, with the word ‘MULTIVEIN’ as its primary identifier.
In December 2024, Alkem discovered Prevego’s product and issued a cease-and-desist notice. Prevego declined to comply. Alkem filed a suit for trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright infringement, and obtained an ex-parte ad-interim injunction on 30 January 2025 restraining Prevego from using the impugned mark. Prevego subsequently filed an application to vacate that injunction. After a full round of arguments and the admission of additional documents, the court delivered its judgment on 17 January 2026, vacating the injunction and dismissing Alkem’s application for interim relief.
Issues before the Court
-
-
- Whether the ‘A TO Z’ mark is generic or descriptive in nature and, if so, whether it has acquired secondary meaning entitling it to protection under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
- Whether the impugned mark ‘MULTIVEIN AZ’ is deceptively similar to Alkem’s registered marks, assessed under the anti-dissection rule and Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act.
- Whether Alkem’s copyright in its artistic logo and trade dress is infringed by Prevego’s mark and packaging.
- Whether Alkem’s concealment of material facts regarding its prior trademark applications disentitles it to equitable relief.
-
Alkem’s Arguments
-
-
- Alkem argued that it had used the A TO Z marks for many years and had built goodwill and reputation in pharmaceutical and nutraceutical products.
- The ‘A TO Z’ marks are coined and arbitrary in the context of dietary supplements, and even if considered descriptive, they have acquired secondary meaning through over 26 years of continuous, extensive use and large advertising expenditure.
- Alkem argued that MULTIVEIN AZ copied the dominant part of its marks, namely the letters A and Z, and would confuse consumers.
- Alkem also argued that Prevago copied its logo style, colour scheme and packaging.
-
Prevego’s Arguments
-
-
- Prevago argued that A TO Z is a common expression that refers to completeness.
- It submitted that Alkem’s registrations were device marks and did not give Alkem a monopoly over the letters A and Z.
- Device marks protect only their specific visual representation, not the underlying letters in isolation, per Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act; the anti-dissection rule requires the marks to be compared as a whole, and the ‘MULTIVEIN AZ‘ mark is visually, phonetically, and conceptually distinct from Alkem’s marks.
- Prevago further argued that Alkem had not disclosed relevant trade mark applications in Class 5.
-
Court’s Observations and Analysis
‘A TO Z’ as a Descriptive Mark
The court observed that ‘A TO Z’ directly describes a product containing vitamins spanning the full alphabetical range. In the court’s view, the phrase communicates the nature of the goods, not the identity of their source. This rendered ‘A TO Z’ descriptive under settled law. The court applied the principle drawn from Pernod Ricard India Private Limited v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1701, that generic and descriptive expressions, being publici juris, cannot serve as exclusive source identifiers regardless of how long or extensively they have been used. Because Alkem neither persuaded the court that the mark had transcended description nor established the secondary meaning required by Godfrey Philips India, the threshold for protection was not met.
The court also noted Alkem’s own conduct before the Trade Marks Registry: in opposition proceedings for Application No. 1270049, Alkem had conceded that its device mark’s protection is confined to its unique stylised representation. That admission, the court held, foreclosed any claim to monopolise the letters ‘A’ and ‘Z’ independently.
The Anti-Dissection Rule and Deceptive Similarity
Having found ‘A TO Z’ descriptive, the court turned to deceptive similarity. Applying the anti-dissection rule under Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, which provides that registration of a composite mark confers exclusive rights in the mark taken as a whole and not in its parts, the court rejected Alkem’s invitation to isolate ‘A’ and ‘Z’ as the dominant elements and compare them in isolation with the ‘AZ’ component of Prevego’s mark.
Assessed as a whole, the court found the marks clearly distinguishable. The ‘MULTIVEIN AZ’ mark is visually distinct, phonetically different (the word ‘MULTIVEIN’ changes the rhythm and emphasis materially), and conceptually separate, the impugned mark evoking the idea of multiple veins or a delivery network rather than the generalised comprehensiveness connoted by ‘A TO Z’. The court further noted the differing colour schemes: Alkem’s marks use yellow and white, while Prevego’s packaging uses red, orange, white, and gold. The Kaviraj Pandit test for deceptive similarity, the court held, was not satisfied.
Copyright and Trade Dress
The court disposed of the copyright and trade dress claims briefly but conclusively. Copyright in Alkem’s stylised logo does not extend to the letters ‘A’ and ‘Z’ as such. A holistic comparison of the two logos showed the letters are rendered in entirely different styles in Prevego’s mark. Similarly, with the finding that the marks are not deceptively similar, the trade dress claim could not independently survive: the overall impression of the competing packaging is different in colour, font, and layout.
Concealment and Equitable Relief
The court found that Alkem had failed to disclose, in its plaint, its own pending and abandoned Class 5 applications for ‘A TO Z’, a directly material omission. The court therefore held that a plaintiff seeking equitable interim relief must approach the court with clean hands, and Alkem had failed to do so.
Findings
-
-
- The court held that A TO Z was descriptive and generic for the goods in question.
- The court held that MULTIVEIN AZ was not deceptively similar to Alkem’s marks.
- The court held that Alkem had no exclusive right over the letters A and Z.
- The court held that Prevago’s mark, label and trade dress did not amount to infringement, passing off, or copyright infringement.
- The court dismissed Alkem’s interim injunction application and allowed Prevago’s application to vacate the earlier interim injunction.
-
Case Citation: Alkem Laboratories Limited v. Prevego Healthcare and Research Pvt. Ltd., CS(COMM) 84/2025, High Court of Delhi, decided on 17 January 2026. Available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/179902877/
Authored by Gaurav Mishra, IP attorney, BananaIP Counsels