The Delhi High Court affirmed the interim injunction restraining Noviets Pharma from using a mark deemed deceptively similar to Novartis, underscoring the limited scope of appellate interference with discretionary interlocutory orders in trademark disputes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellants, Noviets Pharma & Ors., challenged an order dated 28.02.2026 passed by a Single Judge in CS(COMM) No. 218 of 2024, which granted a temporary injunction to the respondents, Novartis AG & Ors., prohibiting the use of the mark “Noviets”. The respondents alleged that “Noviets” is deceptively similar to their well-known mark “Novartis” and that the appellants adopted the mark dishonestly to ride on the respondents’ goodwill.
Key Facts
- Mark registrations of respondents:
- Trade Mark No. 700020, registered on 28.02.1996 (Class 5).
- Trade Mark No. 711148, registered on 11.04.1996 (Class 5).
- International Registration No. IRDI-3050272, registered on 28.04.2015 (multiple classes).
- Sales figures of respondent No. 2 (Novartis India) from FY 2007-08 to FY 2022-23, with net sales peaking at INR 8,122 million in 2014-15 and declining to INR 3,672 million in 2022-23.
- Goodwill: Respondents demonstrated substantial goodwill and reputation, citing global sales of USD 45,440 million in 2023 and Indian sales of INR 3,672 million.
- Cease-and-desist notice: Dated 27.10.2020, sent by respondents to appellants; no response was filed.
- Trademark application: No. 3785550 for “Noviets” (Class 5) filed with user affidavit dated 21.03.2018, claiming use since 21.07.2017; opposition filed on 20.11.2020; application abandoned on 30.01.2023.
- Email reply: Dated 09.08.2022, appellants asserted difference in marks and disclosed registration of a device mark “Noviets” in Class 35.
Procedural History
- 28.02.2026: Single Judge grants interim injunction against appellants (CS(COMM) No. 218/2024).
- 03.08.2026: Judgment reserved in appeal FAO(OS) (COMM) 143/2026.
- 17.08.2026: Appeal dismissed; impugned order upheld.
- IA 5655/2024: Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC, basis of the injunction.
- Earlier trademark filings: Registration dates 28.02.1996, 11.04.1996, 28.04.2015; opposition 20.11.2020; abandonment 30.01.2023.
Parties' Positions
- Appellants argued that the marks are dissimilar when viewed as a whole, that the common prefix “NOV” is generic, and that statutory protection does not extend to individual components of a composite mark. They relied on Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. and Novartis AG v. Novadoz Pharmaceuticals LLC.
- Respondents contended that “Noviets” is deceptively similar to “Novartis”, that the prefix “NOV” is the dominant feature, that the appellants adopted the mark dishonestly, and that goodwill and reputation justify an injunction. They cited Amritdhara v. Satya Deo, Corn Products v. Shangrila Food, Macleods v. Union of India, and Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd..
Relief Sought
The appellants sought (a) setting aside of the impugned order dated 28.02.2026, (b) dismissal of the injunction, and (c) restoration of the status quo ante. The respondents sought confirmation of the injunction and dismissal of the appeal.
The Legal Issue
Whether the appellate court can overturn the Single Judge’s discretionary grant of an interim injunction on the ground that the marks “Noviets” and “Novartis” are not deceptively similar under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, considering the established principles of goodwill, likelihood of confusion, and the limited scope of appellate review of interlocutory orders.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
- The marks must be compared as a whole; the only common element is the prefix “NOV”, which is generic and not entitled to exclusive protection (Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd.).
- Section 17(1) of the Act confers exclusive rights only over the registered mark, not over individual components; therefore, the respondents cannot claim monopoly over “NOV”.
- The appellants use “Noviets” as a corporate name, not as a product trademark, and the goods are marketed under different brand names, reducing the likelihood of confusion.
- Citing Novartis AG v. Novadoz Pharmaceuticals LLC and Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., the appellants argued that similarity of pharmaceutical marks does not automatically warrant an injunction; the surrounding circumstances must be considered.
For the Respondent
- The respondents have demonstrated substantial goodwill and continuous use of “Novartis” since 1996, establishing the mark as a strong identifier (Amritdhara v. Satya Deo).
- The prefix “NOV” is the dominant feature; combined with the similarity in visual, phonetic, and colour elements, the marks are deceptively similar under Section 29.
- The appellants failed to provide any plausible explanation for adopting “Noviets”, indicating dishonest intent.
- Given the pharmaceutical context, a stricter approach is warranted to protect public health, as endorsed in Cadila Health Care Ltd. and AstraZeneca UK Ltd. v. Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd..
The Court's Analysis
The Court first reiterated the principle that an appellate court may not interfere with a discretionary interlocutory order unless the discretion was exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely or contrary to settled law (Wander Ltd. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd.). It observed that the Single Judge had correctly applied the demurrer principle, assuming the pleadings true, and had found prima facie territorial jurisdiction based on the appellants’ IndiaMart listing showing Delhi as the place of business.
On the merits, the Court affirmed that the respondents had established goodwill and reputation through decades of use and substantial sales figures. The Court noted that the dominant prefix “NOV”, combined with similar colour schemes and overall visual impression, created a “triple identity” - similar marks, identical product categories, and overlapping trade channels - satisfying the test for deceptive similarity under Section 29.
The Court rejected the appellants’ argument that the marks should be compared only as whole entities, emphasizing that while the whole-mark comparison is the norm, the dominant feature may be considered when it substantially contributes to the overall impression, especially in the pharmaceutical sector where public interest is heightened.
"The learned Single Judge has exercised the discretion properly and it is not the case where the settled principles of law have been ignored while granting the interim injunction."
The Court further held that the appellate bench could not substitute its own assessment of the likelihood of confusion for that of the trial judge, as the latter’s discretion was exercised reasonably and in accordance with precedent. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the injunction remained in force.
The Verdict
The appeal filed by Noviets Pharma & Ors. is dismissed. The impugned order dated 28.02.2026 granting an interim injunction against the use of the mark “Noviets” is upheld. The pending suit will continue before the Single Judge without alteration. No monetary damages or costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Discretion
- Practitioners should recognize that appellate courts will not reassess the material facts or likelihood of confusion unless the lower court’s discretion is shown to be perverse or arbitrary.
- Interlocutory injunctions in trademark matters, especially where goodwill is established, are hard to overturn on appeal.
Dominant Elements of a Mark Can Influence Deceptive Similarity
- Even if the overall marks differ, a dominant prefix or visual element may tip the balance toward infringement when the mark enjoys substantial goodwill.
- Parties should be prepared to demonstrate distinctive overall impression and absence of dishonest adoption to defeat a similarity claim.
Stricter Scrutiny for Pharmaceutical Marks
- Courts apply a higher threshold for confusion in the pharmaceutical sector due to public-health considerations.
- Evidence of sales, market reach, and consumer perception becomes critical; mere B2B transactions do not automatically lower the risk of confusion.
Take-away for practitioners:
- Secure comprehensive evidence of goodwill and distinctiveness before filing infringement suits.
- When defending a mark, be ready to explain the origin of the mark and demonstrate that any common element is generic.
- Anticipate that appellate review will focus on procedural fairness rather than re-evaluating the substantive likelihood of confusion.
