No Monopoly Over Alphabets: Delhi HC Rejects Alkem's 'A TO Z' Trademark Claim

Alkem, a major pharmaceutical company established in 1973, markets nutraceutical and multivitamin products under the marks “A TO Z” and “A TO Z-NS”, along with a stylized logo and trade dress. It claimed continuous use of the mark since 1998 and asserted that the mark had acquired goodwill and distinctiveness in the healthcare market. Sales and advertising figures were cited to demonstrate reputation.

The dispute arose when Alkem discovered that Prevego was selling nutraceutical tablets under the mark “MULTIVEIN AZ.” Alkem alleged trademark infringement, copyright infringement in its logo and packaging, and passing off. An ex-parte injunction was initially granted in January 2025 restraining Prevego from using the mark. Prevego later sought vacation of that injunction.

Prevego, however, argued that “A TO Z” is a common expression denoting completeness, especially apt for multivitamins ranging from Vitamin A to Zinc, that Alkem’s registrations were device marks and did not confer exclusivity over the letters themselves, that “MULTIVEIN AZ” is structurally and visually different, and that basic alphabet letters cannot be removed from public use; it also pointed to Alkem’s earlier opposed or withdrawn attempts to secure word mark protection for “A TO Z” in Class 5.

A TO Z' is a generic phrase representing completeness or comprehensiveness. The Impugned Mark, while containing 'AZ', clearly focuses on the concept of 'MULTIVEIN' suggesting multiple veins or a network. This addition fundamentally alters the conceptual meaning, making it specific to a particular product or service related to veins or networks, rather than general completeness. It is known that veins and arteries are responsible for blood supply and all multiple vitamins and minerals that are needed by the body are supplied by the veins. An average consumer will perceive 'Multivein AZ' as relating to a network and not simply as 'everything'.

Further, submissions on behalf of Prevego added,

"While 'A' and 'Z' are present in both the Impugned Mark and the Plaintiff's Marks, the addition of 'Multivein' significantly changes the overall sound and rhythm of the Impugned Mark. The Impugned Mark is a longer, more complex phrase than 'A TO Z'. The emphasis and pronunciation are different. Further, there is absence of 'to' in the Impugned Mark, which is an essential word to be pronounced and makes a specific sound when the Plaintiff's Marks are pronounced or read. There is no likelihood of deception. Consumers are unlikely to be confused into thinking that the Impugned Mark is the same as the Plaintiff's Marks. The distinct visual presentation, the different conceptual meaning, and the varied phonetic qualities all contribute to avoiding deception. 'A TO Z' is a short, simple, and commonly understood phrase whereas the Impugned Mark is a compound Mark. 8.9. The presence of 'Multivein' fundamentally alters the structure, making the Impugned Mark a distinct mark, not just a variation of the Plaintiff's Marks. Further, 'AZ' is incorporated in the Impugned Mark within a larger and more complex structure.

There is no likelihood of confusion between the Plaintiff's Marks and the Impugned Mark. Consumers will not associate the Impugned Mark with the Plaintiff's Marks. The differences in concept, sound, appearance, and structure are significant enough to prevent confusion. 'AZ' is used in pharmaceutical industry for other purposes also such as for the presence of Azithromycin drug."

Agreeing substantially with the defence, the Court observed,

“It is clear that 'A TO Z' can represent completeness or comprehensiveness. As the Plaintiff's Products using the Plaintiff's Marks pertain to nutraceuticals and multivitamins, it describes the goods as Vitamins are commonly known by various alphabets. Therefore, multivitamin products can be described by 'A TO Z' encompassing several different types of Vitamins. Therefore, the Mark 'A TO Z' describes the nature of the goods being provided by the Plaintiff as well as the Defendant.

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 use of letters of the English Language cannot be monopolized by the Plaintiff especially in light of the submission made by the Plaintiff before the Trade Marks Registry in the Opposition proceedings for Trade Mark Application No. 1270049, wherein the Plaintiff conceded that the Device Mark, is stylized and that its protection is limited to its unique, 'intertwined-and conjoined manner.”

The Court applied the anti-dissection rule, holding that trademarks must be compared as a whole and that the presence of the word “MULTIVEIN” altered the overall commercial impression, while also finding no copyright infringement since stylized protection does not extend to ownership over the underlying letters.

It additionally noted non-disclosure of certain trademark prosecution history by Alkem while considering equitable relief. Concluding that the rival marks were neither identical nor deceptively similar and that Alkem had no exclusive rights over “A” and “Z,” the Court dismissed Alkem’s interim injunction plea and vacated the earlier restraint order, thereby allowing Prevego to continue using “MULTIVEIN AZ,” and emphatically stating :

"Similarly, the common elements in the Plaintiff's Trade Dresses and the Impugned Trade Dress are the use of the letters 'A' and 'Z'. The overall impression of the competing Trade Dresses is different and with the finding that the Impugned Mark is not deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's Marks, the prayer against the use of the Impugned Trade Dress does not survive either. The fonts used for the Plaintiff's Products and the Defendant's Product and other text are different, the colour scheme of the Plaintiff's Trade Dresses and the Impugned Trade Dress is also different and, hence, the Impugned Trade Dress is not deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's Trade Dresses."

The court held,

"Having considered the averments in the pleadings and the submissions made by the Parties, the Plaintiff's Marks and the Impugned Mark are neither identical nor deceptively similar, the Plaintiff does not have the exclusive right to use the letters 'A' and 'Z'."

To view the official order, click the link below: