The Delhi High Court declined interim protection to Alkem Laboratories, holding that “A TO Z” is descriptive/generic for multivitamin and nutraceutical products and incapable of monopoly at the interim stage. Applying the anti-dissection rule, the Court found no deceptive similarity between Alkem’s composite device marks and the defendant’s mark “MULTIVEIN AZ”. The Court also vacated the ex parte injunction, noting concealment of prosecution history and absence of a prima facie copyright or trade dress infringement.

Issue of Law

The Court’s determination, at the interim stage, turned on three core questions:
  1.    Distinctiveness / descriptiveness: Whether “A TO Z” (as used for nutraceutical/multivitamin products) is descriptive/generic and therefore incapable of monopolisation, absent persuasive proof of secondary meaning.  
   2.    Deceptive similarity (trade mark): Whether the Defendant’s mark “MULTIVEIN AZ” is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s device marks “A TO Z” / “A TO Z-NS”, applying the “anti-dissection” approach and the overall-impression test.  
    3.    Copyright / trade dress and equity: Whether there was copyright infringement in the Plaintiff’s logo/label and trade dress, and whether alleged concealment disentitled the Plaintiff to equitable interim relief.

Facts

The Plaintiff’s Position (Trade Mark Owner)
The Plaintiff asserted long and extensive use of “A TO Z” family marks for nutraceutical/multivitamin products, supported by sales/advertising figures, and claimed the Defendant’s “MULTIVEIN AZ” and packaging were calculated to ride on its goodwill, causing infringement and passing off.

The Defendant’s Position (Alleged Infringer)
The Defendant contended that “A TO Z” is a common phrase connoting completeness (publici juris), that the Plaintiff’s registrations were device marks (not a word-mark monopoly over “A TO Z”), and that “MULTIVEIN AZ” is structurally, visually, and conceptually distinct; it also alleged suppression of the Plaintiff’s earlier Class 5 prosecution history as relevant to interim relief.

Judgment / Holding

The Court refused interim injunction and vacated the ex parte ad interim restraint granted earlier.

1) “A TO Z” treated as descriptive/generic for multivitamin products

The Court held that “A TO Z” can denote completeness and, in the context of vitamins commonly identified by letters, functions descriptively for multivitamin/nutraceutical goods. On this reasoning, the Plaintiff could not claim exclusivity over the letters “A” and “Z” as such.  

2) No deceptive similarity when marks are compared as a whole

Applying the “anti-dissection” rule, the Court treated the Plaintiff’s device marks as composite marks and declined to carve out “A” and “Z” as independently protectable elements for an infringement finding. The Defendant’s composite mark (“MULTIVEIN AZ”) was held not deceptively similar in overall impression, including structure, visual presentation, and phonetic rhythm, with “MULTIVEIN” materially differentiating the mark.

3) Concealment and absence of a surviving copyright/trade dress case at the interim stage

The Court recorded that the Plaintiff did not disclose that its Class 5 “A TO Z” device application had been under opposition since 2007 and noted related prosecution history/third-party landscape as relevant to the equity analysis.  
On copyright and trade dress, the Court reasoned that copyright protection over a stylised label cannot be leveraged to monopolise the letters “A” and “Z”; it found the impugned label/trade dress, viewed holistically, not infringing.  

Disposition

I.A. 2537/2025 (injunction) dismissed; I.A. 6055/2025 allowed; the ex parte ad interim injunction dated 30.01.2025 vacated. 

Access the official judgement/order here

Case Title
Alkem Laboratories Limited (Plaintiff) v. Prevego Healthcare and Research Pvt. Ltd. (Defendant).  

Case Number
CS(COMM) 84/2025; with I.A. 2537/2025 (Plaintiff’s interim injunction application) and I.A. 6055/2025 (Defendant’s application to vacate the ex parte ad interim order).  

Bench
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia.  

Date of Judgment
17 January 2026.