Court Rules 'A TO Z' as Generic, Denies Trademark and Copyright Infringement Claims
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has dismissed Alkem Laboratories Limited's plea for an interim injunction against Prevego Healthcare and Research Pvt Ltd., regarding the alleged infringement of its 'A TO Z' trademarks. The court, presided over by Justice Tejas Karia, found that the term 'A TO Z' was generic and descriptive, and as such, could not be monopolized by Alkem.
The dispute arose when Alkem Laboratories, a major player in the pharmaceutical industry, accused Prevego Healthcare of infringing on its trademarks by using the mark 'Multivein AZ' for its nutraceutical products. Alkem claimed that its trademarks 'A TO Z' and 'A TO Z-NS' had been extensively used and had gained significant recognition in the market.
However, the court noted that 'A TO Z' is a common phrase that denotes completeness and is descriptive of the nature of the goods offered by both companies, particularly in the context of multivitamins and nutraceuticals. Consequently, the court ruled that Alkem could not claim exclusive rights over such a generic term, which is widely used in the industry.
Additionally, the court found no deceptive similarity between Alkem's trademarks and Prevego's 'Multivein AZ.' The ruling emphasized that device marks, like those held by Alkem, do not grant exclusive rights over individual words or letters. The court also pointed out that Alkem's failure to disclose material facts regarding prior trademark applications further weakened its case for equitable relief.
On the issue of copyright infringement, the court concluded that Alkem's logo and trade dresses did not hold exclusive rights over the common letters 'A' and 'Z,' and the visual differences between the parties' products were substantial enough to prevent confusion.
The court's decision to vacate the ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted earlier against Prevego Healthcare allows the latter to continue using the 'Multivein AZ' mark. This ruling highlights the challenges companies face in protecting generic or descriptive trademarks and underscores the importance of transparency in legal proceedings.
Bottom Line:
Trademark Law - Generic and descriptive terms such as 'A TO Z' cannot be monopolized; Device marks protect specific visual representation and not the underlying words or letters in isolation.
Statutory provision(s): Trade Marks Act, 1999 Sections 17, 29, 44; Copyright Act, 1957 Section 14; Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order XXXIX
