The Delhi High Court decreed last week that alphabets could not be monopolised via trademark — refusing interim protection to Alkem Laboratories. The pharma company had filed a plea against Prevego Healthcare & Research for tagging its multivitamin with ‘A to Z’
“The mark ‘A to Z’ is descriptive in nature. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to monopolise the use of the letters ‘A’ and ‘Z’ by seeking exclusivity over the right to use the letters A and Z…The use of letters of the English Language cannot be monopolised,” read an excerpt from the verdict by Justice Tejas Karia.
Alkem Laboratories v Prevego Healthcare and Research – What is the case?
Mumbai-based Alkem had approached the court accusing Prevego of infringing upon its copyright and trademarks: ‘A to Z’ and ‘A to Z-NS’. The company had argued in December 2024 that Prevego was using the mark “for products identical to the plaintiff”. The prominent pharmaceutical brand said that it had been using the two marks since 1998 for health supplements — claiming that “copyright infringement” by Prevego had left consumers confused by the rival “Multivein AZ” product.
Meanwhile Prevego contended that ‘A to Z’ was a commonly used phrase that did not have any individuality or distinctiveness. It argued that ‘Multivein AZ’ was visually, phonetically and conceptually different from the Alkem products. The company also pointed out that the plaintiff did not have any word-mark registration for ‘A to Z’ in the pharmaceutical products category (Class 5).
What did the judge say?
The Delhi High Court sided with Prevego in its verdict — refusing to grant interim protection to Alkem Laboratories. The Court held the trademarks needed to be assessed in their entirety rather than being broken down into individual components. The Bench opined that the addition of ‘Multivein’ significantly altered the overall impression of the mark and reduced any possibility of consumer confusion.
It also criticised Alkem for failing to disclose earlier trademark applications for ‘A to Z’ in Class 5 that had been withdrawn, abandoned or opposed. Teh High Court ruled that such non-disclosure disentitled it from equitable relief.