Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction In Favor Of Alkem In Pharma Trademark Dispute
Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction In Favor Of Alkem In Pharma Trademark Dispute
Introduction
The Delhi High Court issued its decision in the case involving Alkem Laboratories Limited vs Bruventis Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., addressing critical issues of trademark infringement and trade dress similarity in the pharmaceutical industry. The plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to prevent violation of trademark, copyright, trade dress, passing off, rendition of accounts, and damages.
Factual Background
The dispute pertains to Alkem Laboratories Limited, a well-known pharmaceutical company, and its registered trademark "A TO Z" and its derivatives. Since 1998, Alkem Laboratories has been using the trademark and has established a solid reputation in the pharmaceutical sector. The suit was filed after the business found that Bruventis Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and Neutragen Healthcare LLP were utilizing the marks "Bruventis AZ" for their pharmaceutical products.
Procedural Background
The plaintiff sued Neutragen Healthcare LLP and Bruventis Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., demanding an injunction to prevent the defendants from using the contested mark. The plaintiff also requested a rendition of accounts and damages. The court was called upon to decide whether the defendants' use of the mark "Bruventis AZ" and if their trade dress is misleadingly similar to the plaintiff's are examples of trademark infringement.
Issues Involved
1. Trademark Infringement: Whether the defendants' use of the mark "Bruventis AZ" constitutes trademark infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademark "A TO Z".
2. Trade Dress Similarity: Whether the defendants' trade dress is deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff, potentially causing confusion among consumers.
Contentions of the Parties
Plaintiff's Contentions: Alkem Laboratories Limited argued that the defendants' use of the mark "Bruventis AZ" is a clear infringement of its registered trademark "A TO Z". The plaintiff reiterated consumers are likely to become confused by the two marks' structural, visual, and linguistic similarities, particularly considering the nature of pharmaceutical items where accuracy is essential. The plaintiff further claimed that the defendants' trade dress is deceptively similar, which increases the possibility of errors.
Defendants' Contentions: The defendants did not appear before the court to contest the suit, thereby not presenting any counter arguments or defenses against the allegations made by the plaintiff.
Reasoning and Analysis
The bench presided by Justice Saurabh Banerjee performed a thorough examination of the relevant marks and trade dress. It was found that the plaintiff's registered trademark "A TO Z" and the defendants' mark "Bruventis AZ" are almost identical in terms of structure, appearance, and phonetic resemblance. The court recognized that the prominent element "AZ" in both marks could cause consumer confusion, especially in the pharmaceutical industry, where product differentiation is vital for public health and safety.
The court determined that there is a greater chance of confusion because the defendantxs' packaging and presentation closely resemble the plaintiff's in terms of the trade dress. Given the nature of the items concerned, the court stressed the importance of lowering the standard for detecting deceptive similarity in order to protect public health and safety. The court relied on precedents established by the Supreme Court in similar cases, emphasizing the significance of strict procedures to prevent confusion in the pharmaceutical sector.
Final Decision
The Delhi High Court ordered an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff, preventing the defendants from using the disputed mark "Bruventis AZ" or any other similar mark/trade dress. The court set the next hearing for 22 September, 2025, and instructed the defendants to abide by the injunction.
Law Settled
The decision demonstrates the court's commitment to preserving intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical sector, where trademark infringement can cause enormous harm. The court's decision to award the injunction stated the necessity of maintaining distinct and non-confusing trademarks and trade dress to protect public health and safety.
In this case the plaintiff was represented by Ms. Tusha Malhotra and Ms. Tanvi Bhatnagar, Advocates.
