Delhi High Court refuses interim relief to Alkem in ‘A TO Z’ trademark dispute

January 20, 2026 : The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by Alkem Laboratories Limited seeking interim protection against Prevego Healthcare and Research Private Limited over the alleged infringement of its ‘A TO Z’ trademark used for health supplement products.

A single-judge Bench led by Justice Tejas Karia held that common linguistic expressions, including English alphabets, cannot be monopolised through trademark law. The Court was examining Alkem’s claim that Prevego’s multivitamin branded as ‘Multivein AZ’ infringed its ‘A TO Z’ and ‘A TO Z-NS’ marks, which Alkem said it had been using continuously since 1998.

Alkem argued that the adoption of ‘AZ’ by Prevego amounted to trademark infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, passing off, and copyright infringement in respect of its logo and trade dress. Prevego, however, countered that ‘A TO Z’ is a generic and descriptive phrase commonly understood to indicate completeness, and therefore lacks the distinctiveness required for trademark protection under Sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(c) of the Act.

The defendant also pointed out that ‘Multivein AZ’, when viewed as a whole, was visually, phonetically, and conceptually distinct. According to Prevego, ‘Multivein’ was the dominant part of its branding, and Alkem did not hold a registered word mark for ‘A TO Z’ in Class 5, which covers pharmaceutical and nutraceutical products.

Agreeing with this submission, the High Court reiterated that trademarks must be assessed in their entirety rather than by dissecting individual components. In doing so, it relied on settled principles laid down in cases such as Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DHL Express Worldwide (India) Pvt. Ltd.. The Court observed that the addition of ‘Multivein’ significantly changed the overall commercial impression of the mark, reducing the likelihood of consumer confusion.

Justice Karia also took note of Alkem’s failure to disclose earlier applications for the ‘A TO Z’ mark in Class 5 that had been withdrawn, abandoned, or opposed. Relying on principles recognised in ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Reliance Industries Ltd., the Court held that this nondisclosure disentitled the plaintiff from equitable interim relief. As a result, the ex parte injunction earlier granted in Alkem’s favour was vacated.

The Court further rejected the copyright infringement claim, finding no substantial similarity in the expression of the rival marks that could qualify as protectable artistic or literary work under the Copyright Act, 1957.