Alkem Vs Alchem: Delhi HC Grants Interim Relief to Alkem Labs in Trademark Tussle
Delhi High Court
New Delhi: In a major trademark dispute between two prominent names in the pharmaceutical and nutraceutical industry, the Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction in favor of Alkem Laboratories, restraining Alchem International from manufacturing, selling, advertising, or promoting any pharmaceutical or medicinal products under the mark ALCHEM or any other deceptively similar mark to ALKEM.
The Court, while granting interim relief, held that “ALKEM” and “ALCHEM” are phonetically identical, visually similar, and likely to deceive consumers, thereby constituting trademark infringement and passing off.
The order was pronounced by Justice Amit Bansal on October 10, 2025, following the reservation of judgment on July 11, 2025, in CS(COMM) 1050/2018.
The case arose from a trademark dispute over the marks "ALKEM" and "ALCHEM." Alkem Laboratories, incorporated in 1973, is one of India’s leading pharmaceutical companies, marketing more than 700 brands across major therapeutic categories. The company claimed ownership and continuous use of the mark “ALKEM” as both its house name and brand identity since inception, with multiple trademark registrations dating back to 1973.
Alchem International, incorporated in 1982, manufactures plant-based active ingredients, extracts, and nutraceuticals. It claimed to have coined and adopted the mark “ALCHEM” from the words “Alkaloids” and “Chemicals” and asserted its use since 1985. Alkem first issued a cease-and-desist notice to Alchem in 2005 but approached the Court in 2018 after Alchem allegedly expanded its retail operations and intensified marketing of products bearing the “ALCHEM” mark and logo.
Appearing through Senior Advocates Rajiv Nayar and Sandeep Sethi, Alkem Laboratories argued that it was the prior adopter and registered proprietor of the mark “ALKEM” since 1973 and had built enormous goodwill and reputation over five decades of use. The petitioner submitted that the defendant’s mark “ALCHEM” was phonetically, visually, and structurally similar, leading to inevitable confusion among consumers, particularly because both parties operated in the pharmaceutical and nutraceutical space.
Alkem contended that Alchem’s adoption of a nearly identical mark was neither honest nor incidental but a deliberate attempt to ride on Alkem’s goodwill. The plaintiff pointed out that after the Court’s interim status quo order in 2018, Alchem gave greater prominence to the mark “ALCHEM LIFE” in its packaging and online advertisements, further aggravating confusion in the marketplace. It was also argued that Alkem had consistently opposed Alchem’s trademark applications and issued notices objecting to its usage, demonstrating that there was no acquiescence or delay on its part. The plaintiff maintained that Alchem’s aggressive marketing, including radio and online campaigns, was an intentional effort to mislead consumers and capitalize on the established reputation of the “ALKEM” brand.
Senior Advocate Raj Shekhar Rao, appearing for Alchem International, argued that the company had adopted the mark “ALCHEM” in 1982 independently and in good faith, derived from its core business in alkaloids and chemicals. He contended that Alchem had been using the mark continuously and openly for over three decades, establishing its own identity and goodwill in India and abroad.
Alchem further argued that when it adopted the mark, Alkem’s trademark “ALKEM” was filed only on a “proposed to be used” basis and had not acquired sufficient reputation or secondary meaning. The defendant also invoked the defense of acquiescence and delay, stating that Alkem was aware of Alchem’s business since the 1990s but waited more than 20 years before approaching the Court.
It was further submitted that Alchem’s products primarily comprised plant-derived active ingredients and nutraceuticals, distinct from Alkem’s prescription drugs, and that the mark “ALCHEM” was used merely as a source identifier on packaging rather than a prominent brand mark.
Justice Amit Bansal observed that the marks “ALKEM” and “ALCHEM” are phonetically identical and deceptively similar, adding that the plaintiff was the prior adopter and registered proprietor, while the defendant held no trademark registration for “ALCHEM.” The Court rejected the defence of acquiescence, holding that Alkem’s cease-and-desist notice of 2005 and multiple oppositions to Alchem’s trademark applications constituted clear warnings that precluded any inference of consent.
In the words of the Court:
“The plaintiff is the prior adopter and user of the mark ‘ALKEM’. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor, whereas the defendant has not been granted any trademark registration in respect of its mark ‘ALCHEM’. The defendant has failed to establish the defence of acquiescence or delay so as to deny the relief of interim injunction to the plaintiff.”
The Court further noted that Alchem had only begun retail sales in India in 2006, after the plaintiff’s warning, and its subsequent expansion into similar product lines made its adoption of the mark neither honest nor bona fide. Observing the similarity of products and trade channels, Justice Bansal held that there existed a real and substantial likelihood of confusion among consumers, including medical professionals and the general public.
Delivering its operative order, the Court ruled:
“The defendant, its directors, executives, partners or proprietors, as the case may be, their officers, servants, and agents, or any other persons acting for and on their behalf are restrained from selling, manufacturing, offering for sale, advertising, promoting, marketing or in any manner dealing in any pharmaceutical or medicinal product under the trademark ‘ALCHEM’ or any other deceptively similar mark to the plaintiff’s mark ‘ALKEM’.”
However, providing limited relief, the Court clarified:
“It is made clear that the interim injunction would not apply in respect of the defendant using the impugned mark ‘ALCHEM’ in respect of manufacture and sale of APIs in India and overseas, provided the same is not used for retail sales in India.”
To view the official order, click the link below:
