The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that ‘NOVARTIS’, being a well-known mark registered and used in India since 1996 with substantial sales figures, is entitled to strong protection against any deceptively similar adoption, even where the competing mark differs in suffix or device elements. The Court rejected the appellants’ argument that the prefix ‘NOV’ was generic or common to the trade, holding that it constituted the dominant and essential feature of the respondents’ mark and could not be allowed to be diluted by a subsequent user without adequate explanation for adoption.
The Court held that where a well-known pharmaceutical mark with established goodwill and continuous use since 1996 is sought to be diluted by a subsequent user adopting a coined expression sharing the dominant prefix and overall visual and phonetic similarity, and where both parties operate in the pharmaceutical sector with overlapping trade channels, the case satisfies the ‘triple identity’ test warranting grant of interim injunction.
The Division Bench comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora noted that the impugned marks were deceptively similar to the extent that they were visually and phonetically similar, targeted the same consumer base, and the class of consumers was also similar. The Single Judge noted that a mere replacement of the letters ‘AR’ with ‘IE’ and removal of the letter ‘I’ from the respondents’ mark would not amount to a distinguishing feature sufficient to differentiate the goods of the parties. However, the Division Bench emphasised that in cases involving pharmaceutical products, a stricter approach ought to be adopted by Courts due to public interest considerations, and even an initial interest confusion at a preliminary stage would be sufficient to meet the requirement of deceptive similarity under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The Single Judge further noted that the prefix ‘NOV’ formed the dominant feature of the impugned marks and that the mark ‘Novartis’, being in use since 1996, could not be allowed to be diluted by a similar mark using the prefix ‘NOV’. The Division Bench, while dealing with the appeal, observed that the Single Judge had applied the demurrer principle for territorial jurisdiction and that the issue would be decided after framing of issues at trial.
The Bench noted that both parties were involved in pharmaceutical products, with the appellants dealing in veterinary products, making the competing goods and consumer base sufficiently similar to create a substantial risk of confusion. The Court found that the appellants had failed to provide a plausible explanation for how they arrived at the mark ‘Noviets’, and that the mark appeared to have been coined to benefit from the goodwill of the respondents.
Briefly, the appellants, Noviets Pharma and others, challenged the order dated 28 February 2026 passed by the Single Judge, whereby a temporary injunction was granted in favour of the respondents, Novartis AG and others, restraining the appellants from using the mark ‘NOVIETS’ on the ground that it was deceptively similar to the registered mark ‘NOVARTIS’. The respondents claimed to be leaders in the healthcare industry with a presence in India since 1947 through their predecessor in interest, and they adopted the mark ‘NOVARTIS’ in 1996 with continuous user since then.
The respondents held multiple trademark registrations for ‘NOVARTIS’, including registration number 700020 dated 28 February 1996 in Class 05, IRDI-3050272 dated 28 April 2015 across multiple classes, and registration number 711148 dated 11 April 1996 in Class 05. The sales turnover of respondent no. 2 in India ranged from INR 5,535 million in 2007-08 to INR 3,672 million in 2022-23.
The appellants contended that they were dealing in pharmaceuticals and veterinary products in localised offline markets in Begusarai and Patna in Bihar, and that their online listing on IndiaMart was merely passive and informative. However, the respondents pointed out that the IndiaMart listing showed Delhi as the appellants’ place of business, which was accepted by the Single Judge as sufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction upon the Delhi Court.
