Delhi High Court Upholds Injunction Against “NOVIETS” for Being Deceptively Similar to “NOVARTIS”

Summary

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, in Noviets Pharma & Ors. v. Novartis AG & Ors., dismissed an appeal against an interim injunction restraining the Appellants from using “NOVIETS”, holding that the learned Single Judge had rightly found a prima facie case of deceptive similarity with the Respondents’ prior registered and reputed mark ‘NOVARTIS’.

Facts of the Case

The Respondents, part of the Novartis group, had adopted the mark ‘NOVARTIS /

in 1996 and had continuously used the same in relation to pharmaceutical products. The mark was registered in India, including under Registration No. 700020 in Class 5, and the Respondents relied upon extensive use and substantial goodwill and reputation acquired over the years.

The Appellants were using the mark ‘NOVIETS /

’ as part of their business names, including Noviets Pharma and other entities engaged in pharmaceutical and veterinary products. The learned Single Judge had granted an interim injunction, finding the competing marks to be visually and phonetically similar and observing that both parties operated in the pharmaceutical sector.

Before the Division Bench, the Appellants contended that ‘NOVARTIS’ and ‘NOVIETS’ were dissimilar when compared as a whole and that the Respondents were impermissibly dissecting the marks by relying upon the common prefix “NOV”. It was also argued that NOVIETS was used as a corporate/business identifier and that the parties operated through different trade channels.

Issue before the Court

Whether the learned Single Judge had correctly granted an interim injunction restraining the Appellants from using ‘NOVIETS’, on the ground that it was deceptively similar to the Respondents’ prior mark ‘NOVARTIS’.

Findings of the Court

The Division Bench agreed that the Respondents had established substantial goodwill and reputation in NOVARTIS, which had been used since 1996. The Court also noted that the Respondents’ mark had been recognised as a well-known mark.

While accepting that composite marks ordinarily have to be compared as a whole, the Court held that the Appellants’ contention that “NOV” was merely generic or common to trade did not hold good on the facts of the case. The extensive and longstanding use of NOVARTIS had resulted in significant distinctiveness and reputation, particularly in the pharmaceutical sector.

The Court further rejected the argument that the use of NOVIETS merely as a corporate/business name insulated the Appellants from an action for infringement or passing off. It noted that the Appellants had themselves claimed use of NOVIETS since 21 July 2017 in an earlier trademark application, which was subsequently abandoned after the Respondents’ opposition. Further, Section 29(5) of the Trade Marks Act recognises infringement where a registered trademark is used as part of a trade name in respect of the relevant goods or services.

Importantly, the Court found that both parties were engaged in pharmaceutical products and that the competing goods and consumer base were sufficiently similar to create a substantial risk of confusion. The Court also endorsed the application of greater caution in pharmaceutical trademark disputes, given the potentially serious consequences of confusion between pharmaceutical products.

The Court also found that the Appellants had failed to provide an adequate explanation for the adoption of NOVIETS, which prima facie supported the inference of dishonest adoption and an attempt to benefit from the goodwill associated with NOVARTIS.

Held

The Division Bench held that the learned Single Judge had properly exercised the discretion in granting the interim injunction and that there was no perversity, arbitrariness or disregard of settled principles warranting appellate interference. Relying on Wander Ltd. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd., the Court reiterated that an appellate court should not substitute its own discretion for that of the court of first instance merely because another view may be possible.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the interim injunction restraining the Appellants from using NOVIETS was upheld. The Court clarified that its findings were prima facie and would not influence the final adjudication of the pending suit after trial.

Conclusion

The decision reiterates that while competing composite marks must be assessed in their entirety, a common element may assume significance where a prior mark has acquired substantial distinctiveness and reputation through longstanding use. The judgment also underscores that use of a deceptively similar mark as a corporate or trade name does not, by itself, take such use outside the scope of an infringement or passing off claim, particularly where the parties operate in the same pharmaceutical sector.

Last Updated on 21 September, 2026