The Delhi High Court recently granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Novartis AG (Plaintiff) and restrained Novasis Healthcare (Defendant) from using the impugned marks, finding the adoption of deceptively similar trademarks by defendants to be ex facie dishonest, while listing the matter for final hearing on December 17, 2025. The Court also granted an exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tejas Karia characterized the present case as a case of “triple identity” where the mark is identical, the product category is identical, and the trade channel as well as the consumer base, is identical. The Bench therefore held that the impugned marks adopted by defendants were visually, phonetically, structurally, and deceptively similar to plaintiffs’ trademark ‘NOVARTIS’, likely to confuse unwary consumers of average intelligence and imperfect recollection regarding the source or origin of goods.
The Bench noted that Novartis AG is a leading Swiss pharmaceutical company operating in India through its subsidiary, with the trademark ‘NOVARTIS’ adopted in 1996 and having gained significant goodwill and reputation in the Indian market through continuous use, extensive advertising, high sales figures, and strong quality control. The Bench recorded the details of registered trademarks, noting that ‘NOVARTIS’ was registered in India under Registration No. 700020 dated 28/02/1996 in Class 05 (valid until 28/02/2026) and IRDI-3050272 dated 28/04/2015 covering multiple classes with protection granted.
From perusal of the competing marks which were reproduced for comparison, the Bench observed that both defendants, having common directors/partners and operating as a common economic unit, collectively adopted impugned marks ‘NOVASIS’, ‘NOVASYS’, ‘NOVATICS’ and various device marks that were phonetically and visually similar to plaintiffs’ prior adopted and registered trademark ‘NOVARTIS’.
Lastly, the Bench issued a comprehensive restraint order directing that until the next hearing date, defendants and all associated entities were restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, or dealing in medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations under any of the impugned marks or any other mark phonetically, visually, structurally, and deceptively similar to plaintiffs’ trademark ‘NOVARTIS’.
Briefly, in this case, in March 2025, the plaintiff, a Swiss pharmaceutical company, discovered that the defendants, engaged in manufacturing and selling pharmaceutical goods, had filed multiple trademark applications for marks ‘NOVASIS’, ‘NOVASYS’, ‘NOVATICS’, and various device marks that were phonetically and visually similar to the plaintiff’s registered trademark ‘NOVARTIS’. Despite legal notices, the defendants refused to cease their allegedly infringing activities.
Later, the plaintiff filed a commercial suit seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants for trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiffs claimed that it had adopted and registered the trademark ‘NOVARTIS’ in 1996 and has continuously used it internationally and in India for manufacturing, marketing, research, and development of pharmaceutical products. The mark has gained an enviable reputation and goodwill through high-quality standards, extensive advertising campaigns, and strong quality control.
Appearances:
Advocates Mamta R. Jha, Anupriya Shyam, and Anjeeta Rani, for the Plaintiffs
Advocates Aman Jha, Rishi Toto, Srijan Sahu, and Kshitij Mayank, for the Defendants
