Inclusion of English Alphabets in Trademark Law

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court in the case of Alkem Laboratories Limited v. Prevego Healthcare and Research Pvt Ltd. (2025) held that English alphabets cannot be monopolised through trademark law and refused interim protection to the mark 'A TO Z' used by a pharmaceutical company. 

What was the Background of Alkem Laboratories Limited v. Prevego Healthcare and Research Pvt Ltd. (2025) Case? 

• Alkem Laboratories filed a suit against Prevego Healthcare over the use of 'AZ' in the branding of multivitamin products. 
• Alkem argued that Prevego's product 'Multivein AZ' infringed its well-known 'A to Z' and 'A to Z-NS' brands. 
• Alkem claimed it had been using the 'A to Z' mark since 1998 for pharmaceutical and health supplement products. 
• The plaintiff alleged that Prevego's use of 'AZ' for similar health supplements amounted to trademark infringement, passing off and copyright violation in its logo and trade dress. 
• An ex parte injunction had been granted earlier in favour of Alkem Laboratories. 
• Prevego contended that 'A to Z' was a commonly used phrase denoting comprehensiveness and lacked distinctiveness. 
• The defendant argued that its mark 'Multivein AZ' was visually, phonetically and conceptually different, with 'Multivein' being the dominant element. 
• Prevego pointed out that Alkem did not hold a word-mark registration for 'A to Z' in Class 5, which covers pharmaceutical products. 
• The case involved products in the multivitamin and health supplement category. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• Justice Karia stated, "Hence, the Mark 'A TO Z' is descriptive in nature. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be allowed to monopolize the use of the letters 'A' and 'Z' by seeking exclusivity over the right to use the letters 'A' and 'Z'." 
• The Court held that trademarks must be assessed as a whole rather than broken into individual components. 
• The Court found that the addition of 'Multivein' significantly altered the overall impression of the defendant's mark and reduced any likelihood of consumer confusion. 
• The Court criticised Alkem for failing to disclose earlier trademark applications for 'A to Z' in Class 5 that had been withdrawn, abandoned or opposed. 
• The Court ruled that such non-disclosure disentitled Alkem from equitable relief. 
• Justice Karia rejected Alkem's claims of copyright infringement. 
• The Court vacated the ex parte injunction granted earlier in favour of Alkem. 
• The Court allowed Prevego to continue selling its product under the 'Multivein AZ' mark. 
• The judgment emphasized that English alphabets cannot be monopolised through trademark law. 

What is Trademark Law in India? 

About Trademarks: 

• A trademark is a symbol, word, phrase, design, or combination of these elements used to identify and distinguish the goods or services of one company from those of another. 
• Trademarks are protected by Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). 
• Trademark law in India is governed by the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which protects distinctive marks used in trade and commerce. 
• A trademark can include words, logos, symbols, colors, or combinations thereof that distinguish goods or services of one entity from another. 
• Trademarks can be registered with government agencies to provide legal protection against unauthorized use by others. 
• For a mark to be registrable, it must possess distinctiveness and should not be descriptive, generic, or commonly used. 
• Class 5 of trademark classification covers pharmaceutical products, medicinal preparations, and health supplements. 
• Marks that are descriptive in nature generally lack the distinctiveness required for trademark protection. 
• Common phrases or alphabetical combinations that denote comprehensiveness are typically not eligible for exclusive trademark protection. 

Legislative Framework: 

• The Trade Marks Act, 1999 was enacted and brought into force on 30th December 1999 to amend and consolidate the law relating to trade marks in India. 
• The stated object of the Act is: "An Act to amend and consolidate the law relating to trade marks, to provide for registration and better protection of trade marks for goods and services and for the prevention of the use of fraudulent marks." 
• The Act comprises 13 Chapters encompassing a total of 159 Sections, delineating the framework governing the registration, protection, and enforcement of trademark rights. 
• The Act provides for the registration of trademarks and establishes a system of penalties for infringement. 

Trademarks Registry: 

• The Trademarks Registry was originally established in 1940. 
• At present, it operates under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the corresponding rules framed thereunder, pursuant to the authority of the Central Government of India. 
• The territorial jurisdiction of the Registry extends across the entire territory of India. 
• The Head Office of the Registry is located in Mumbai, with regional branch offices situated in Ahmedabad, Chennai, Delhi, and Kolkata. 
• The Registry is entrusted with the administration of intellectual property rights pertaining to trade marks for goods and services, aimed at ensuring robust protection against infringement and fraudulent usage. 
• Following India's accession to the Madrid Protocol—an international treaty under the Madrid System governing the global registration of trade marks—the Trade Marks Registry also functions in dual capacities: as the Office of Origin for international applications filed by Indian proprietors, and as the Designated Office for applications wherein India has been identified as a country seeking protection. 
• The Trade Marks Registry operates under the leadership of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, who serves ex officio as the Registrar of Trade Marks. 

Trademark Infringement and Passing Off: 

• Trademark infringement occurs when an unauthorized party uses a mark that is identical or deceptively similar to a registered trademark without the owner's permission. 
• Infringement can result in legal action, including damages, injunctions, and criminal sanctions. 
• Passing off is a common law remedy that protects unregistered marks where one party misrepresents their goods or services as those of another. 
• For a successful claim of passing off, the plaintiff must establish goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage or likelihood of damage. 
• Courts assess marks as a whole rather than dissecting them into individual components when determining likelihood of confusion. 
• Visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarities are considered when evaluating potential confusion between marks. 
• The dominant element of a composite mark plays a significant role in determining overall impression and distinctiveness.

Maintenance Requirements: 

• To maintain legal protection for a trademark, the owner must make regular use of it in connection with the goods or services for which it is registered. 
• Failure to use a mark for an extended period of time may result in the mark being cancelled or invalidated.