Delhi High Court Safeguards Novartis’ Trademark Rights, Restrains Use of Deceptively Similar ‘Novitas’ Mark

Case Background:

In the present case, the Delhi High Court on 3^rd February 2025 passed an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining a pharmaceutical company from using the trademark “NOVITAS” in response to a trademark infringement suit filed by global pharmaceutical giant, Novartis.

Facts:

• The case involves a trademark infringement and passing off dispute between Novartis AG, a globally recognized pharmaceutical company, and Novitas Lifesciences, an Indian entity operating in the same industry.
• Novartis AG is one of the world’s leading pharmaceutical companies, engaged in the manufacture, research, development, and sale of medical and healthcare products. The company has used the mark “NOVARTIS” and its logo as early as in the year 1996 and have continuously and extensively been using the trademark since then, internationally as well as in India.
• Novitas Lifesciences is an Indian company engaged in the manufacturing and selling pharmaceuticals and veterinary preparations. In July 2024, Novartis discovered that Novitas was actively using the mark and selling products under it.
• Novartis sent a cease-and-desist notice to Novitas via courier and email, demanding that it stop using the mark. Just two days after receiving the legal notice, Novitas filed a trademark application for “NOVITAS” under Class 5 (pharmaceuticals).
• Thus, the present suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining infringement of registered trademark, passing off, dilution, unfair competition for rendition of accounts/damages, delivery up, etc.

Issues:

1. Does the Plaintiffs have a prima facie case for grant of injunction?

Plaintiff’s Arguments:

• The Plaintiff’s trademark “NOVARTIS” has been in continuous and extensive use since 1996, internationally and in India. It is a well-known trademark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and has been included in the list of well-known trademarks by the Registrar of Trade Marks.
• The Defendants’ mark “NOVITAS” is deceptively similar to “NOVARTIS”, differing by only a minor rearrangement of letters A and T and removing the letter ‘R’.
• The similarity in visual appearance, phonetics, and industry (pharmaceuticals) makes it likely to cause confusion among consumers which in itself shows the mala fide intention to ride upon the goodwill and reputation earned by the well-known trade mark of the Plaintiffs.
• It was submitted by the Plaintiff that there can be no plausible justification on part of the Defendants to adopt the impugned mark NOVITAS for pharmaceutical goods.

The Defendant in the present case failed to appear before the Court despite service.

Court’s Reasoning & Analysis:

The Court noted that Novartis is a globally recognized and reputed pharmaceutical brand, with a well-established presence in India since 1996.  Given the high reputation and distinctiveness of Novartis, the adoption of a phonetically and visually similar mark ‘NOVITAS’ by the Defendants raised strong prima facie evidence of infringement and passing off.

The Court agreed with the Plaintiffs that ‘NOVITAS’ was almost identical to ‘NOVARTIS’, both in terms of appearance and sound, especially when spoken aloud. This similarity was particularly concerning because the products involved were pharmaceuticals, where confusion could endanger public health and safety. The Court found that the Defendants had no valid reason to adopt the mark ‘NOVITAS’, The Defendants could easily choose a different, non-conflicting mark, thereby avoiding harm altogether. The Court recognized that the Defendants’ use of ‘NOVITAS’ could cause not only consumer confusion but also dilution of the well-established Novartis brand, harming its reputation and distinct identity in the market.

Based on these observations, the court concluded that Novartis had a strong prima facie case, and the balance of convenience and risk of irreparable injury was justified and thus granted an ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using ‘NOVITAS’ or any similar mark pending further proceedings.

Conclusion:

Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants and their business associates from using the “NOVITAS” mark or any deceptively similar name for pharmaceutical products, as it constitutes trademark infringement, passing off, dilution, and unfair competition. The defendants are allowed to continue their business under a different, non-deceptive mark until the next hearing.