Delhi HC Upholds Injunction Against Noviets Pharma Over NOVIETS Mark, Finds Similarity With Novartis
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Noviets Pharma and its associated entities against an interim injunction restraining them from using the mark 'NOVIETS', holding that the mark is prima facie deceptively similar to the well-known pharmaceutical trademark 'NOVARTIS.'
A Division Bench comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, in its judgment delivered on August 17, 2026, upheld the order of the Single Judge that had granted temporary protection to Novartis AG and its Indian entities. The Court found that the competing marks operated in the pharmaceutical sector, that Novartis had established substantial goodwill and reputation through long-standing use, and that the adoption of “Noviets” raised a prima facie likelihood of confusion and deception.
The dispute concerns the use of the trademark “NOVIETS” by Noviets Pharma and related entities and its alleged similarity to “NOVARTIS,” the established mark of Novartis AG and its associated Indian entities. The immediate proceedings arose from an appeal against the Single Judge's order dated February 28, 2026, passed in the underlying commercial suit, by which Noviets Pharma was temporarily restrained from using “NOVIETS” on the ground that it was deceptively similar to “NOVARTIS.” The Division Bench was therefore called upon to examine whether the Single Judge had correctly exercised discretion in granting the interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The case is particularly significant because the dispute is not simply about two pharmaceutical product names. The Court noted that the competing marks were associated with pharmaceutical businesses and that Novartis had been using its mark since 1996, while Noviets was a subsequent adoption. The central questions before the Court included whether “NOVIETS” was deceptively similar to “NOVARTIS,” whether the common prefix “NOV” could be relied upon in determining similarity, whether Noviets could avoid infringement by describing “Noviets” as merely a corporate or trade name, whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction, and whether the Single Judge had correctly applied the principles governing interim injunctions.
According to the judgment, Novartis AG and its associated entities claimed a long-standing presence in the healthcare sector, with their predecessor having a presence in India since 1947. Novartis stated that the trademark “NOVARTIS” was adopted in 1996 and had been continuously used thereafter, resulting in substantial goodwill and reputation. The mark was registered in India, including registration covering several classes. The record also contained substantial sales figures for the Indian business, with net sales reported at INR 3,672 million in 2022–23.
The dispute subsequently arose over the use of “NOVIETS” by the appellants, who operate in the pharmaceutical and veterinary-products sector. Before the Single Judge, Noviets Pharma argued, among other things, that its activities were primarily conducted through localised offline markets in Begusarai and Patna in Bihar and that its online listing on IndiaMART was merely passive and informational. Novartis, on the other hand, argued that the IndiaMART listing identified Delhi as a place of business and made the appellants' products accessible to consumers in Delhi. The Single Judge found that the online activities were sufficient, at the preliminary stage, to entertain the suit, while leaving the final determination of territorial jurisdiction to be decided after evidence and trial.
The Single Judge also found that “NOVARTIS” had acquired distinctive character and goodwill through prolonged use and that “NOVIETS” was visually and phonetically similar, while the parties operated in allied pharmaceutical fields and targeted a similar consumer base. The Single Judge rejected the argument that “NOVIETS” was merely a trade name rather than a trademark and noted that the appellants had not provided a plausible explanation for the adoption of the mark. The Court also considered the similarity in the marks' colour combination, placement of features, visual appearance and pronunciation. Given the pharmaceutical context, the Single Judge applied a stricter approach because confusion involving medicinal products can have serious consequences.
Noviets Pharma challenged the Single Judge's order before the Division Bench, arguing that “NOVARTIS” and “NOVIETS” were fundamentally different when viewed as complete marks. Counsel for the appellants argued that the competing marks were visually, phonetically, structurally and conceptually dissimilar and that the Single Judge had reached the finding of deceptive similarity by improperly dissecting the marks into individual components. According to the appellants, trademarks must ordinarily be compared as a whole and in the manner in which consumers encounter them in the ordinary course of trade.
The appellants further argued that the logos and overall presentation were different. They described the “NOVIETS” device as consisting of a circular design with blue and orange elements, accompanied by the tagline “Serving Health Better,” whereas the Novartis mark contained a different abstract device. They contended that the only common element was the prefix “NOV”, while the remaining portions—“ARTIS” and “IETS”—were materially different. They also argued that the pronunciation differed, with “Novartis” being pronounced as “NO-VAR-TIS” and “Noviets” as “NO-VEE-ETS” or “NO-VYETS.”
A major plank of the appellants' case was that “NOV” could not be monopolised by Novartis. Relying on Sections 15 and 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, they argued that registration protects the trademark as a whole and does not ordinarily confer exclusive rights over individual portions of a composite mark unless those portions are separately protected. According to the appellants, if Novartis intended to claim exclusive rights over “NOV,” it should have pursued separate statutory protection. They therefore argued that the respondents could not use the present proceedings to indirectly obtain a monopoly over a common constituent of a composite mark.
The appellants also relied on the nature of the pharmaceutical trade. They argued that “NOVIETS” was being used as a corporate/business identity rather than as the brand name of pharmaceutical products, which were marketed under separate product names. They further contended that their business operated primarily through B2B channels involving distributors, stockists, veterinary professionals and other informed intermediaries, where purchasing decisions involved a higher degree of care. Therefore, according to the appellants, the likelihood of confusion should not be assessed as though the marks were encountered by an ordinary retail consumer.
The appellants additionally argued that the Supreme Court's decision in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. did not mean that every similarity between pharmaceutical marks automatically justified an injunction. They maintained that the likelihood of confusion had to be assessed by considering the nature of the marks, degree of resemblance, nature of goods, class of purchasers, mode of purchase and other surrounding circumstances. On these grounds, they sought reversal of the interim injunction.
Novartis strongly defended the injunction, asserting that “NOVARTIS” was a coined and distinctive mark with extensive international and Indian goodwill. Counsel submitted that the mark had been registered in more than 100 countries, including India, and that Novartis was the prior adopter and user. The appellants, according to Novartis, had not disputed this prior adoption or the statutory registrations. Novartis relied upon decades of commercial use and substantial sales to establish the reputation and distinctiveness of its mark.
Novartis also argued that “NOVARTIS” had been recognised as a well-known trademark in India and in various WIPO and INDRP proceedings. It submitted that Noviets had failed to provide any credible explanation for adopting the coined expression “NOVIETS,” despite its close resemblance to the established Novartis mark. The absence of an explanation, Novartis argued, supported the inference that the adoption was not bona fide and was intended to benefit from the goodwill associated with “NOVARTIS.”
The respondents further contended that the similarity extended beyond the word itself. According to them, “NOVARTIS” could be viewed as comprising “NOV,” “AR” and “TIS,” while “NOVIETS” similarly contained “NOV,” “IE” and “TS.” They also pointed to similarities in the logos, including colour combinations and placement of features. Novartis relied on several judicial precedents dealing with deceptive similarity and pharmaceutical trademarks and emphasised that courts should adopt a stricter approach in cases involving medicinal products, because confusion between medicines can potentially have life-threatening consequences.
Novartis rejected the argument that “NOV” was common to the trade, pointing out that Noviets had itself applied for registration of “NOVIETS” in Class 5 for pharmaceutical preparations. The respondents argued that the appellants could not simultaneously seek registration of the mark and claim that its dominant element was generic or common to the trade. They also noted that the appellants had failed to produce evidence showing actual commercial use by third parties of marks containing the “NOV” prefix.
The respondents also challenged the contention that “NOVIETS” was merely a corporate name. They pointed to the appellants' trademark application and user affidavit, which stated that “NOVIETS” had been used since July 21, 2017. The application was opposed by Novartis and was subsequently abandoned after the appellants did not file a counter-statement. Novartis argued that the use of “NOVIETS” across entities such as Noviets Pharma, Noviets Veterinary Private Limited and Noviets Pharmaceuticals Private Limited demonstrated that the expression functioned as a primary commercial identifier rather than merely an incidental corporate description.
On jurisdiction, Novartis maintained that the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction because the appellants' IndiaMART listing identified Delhi as a place of business and their products were accessible to Delhi consumers. It argued that the question of whether the online listing was sufficiently interactive to facilitate transactions was a mixed question of fact and law that could properly be determined after evidence at trial.
The Division Bench substantially agreed with the reasoning of the Single Judge. On territorial jurisdiction, the Bench noted that the Single Judge had applied the demurrer principle by assuming the respondents' pleaded case to be true at the preliminary stage. The IndiaMART listing showed Delhi as a place of business and the products were accessible to Delhi consumers. However, the Bench clarified that the ultimate question of jurisdiction would have to be decided by the Single Judge after framing the relevant issues and considering evidence at trial.
On the central trademark issue, the Division Bench noted that both parties were engaged in pharmaceutical businesses, with Noviets dealing in veterinary products. The Court agreed that the competing goods and consumer base were sufficiently similar to create a substantial risk of confusion. Importantly, the Court also noted that Noviets had failed to provide a plausible explanation for how it arrived at the “NOVIETS” mark. In the Court's prima facie assessment, the mark appeared to have been coined in circumstances where Novartis already possessed a strong reputation, suggesting dishonest adoption and an apparent attempt to benefit from Novartis's goodwill.
The Court gave considerable weight to Novartis's long-standing use and commercial reputation. It noted that the “NOVARTIS” mark had been used since 1996 and that the company's Indian sales for 2022–23 stood at INR 3,672 million. The Bench also agreed with the Single Judge that pharmaceutical trademarks require greater caution because confusion between medicines can have serious, even life-threatening, consequences. The Single Judge's description of the case as involving “triple identity” — similar marks, identical product category and identical/similar trade channels — was therefore significant in assessing the balance of convenience and potential irreparable harm.
The Bench also addressed the appellants' argument concerning the common prefix “NOV.” While accepting the general proposition that composite marks should ordinarily be assessed in their entirety, the Court held that the appellants' argument did not carry sufficient weight in the circumstances of this case. The Bench noted that Section 17 protects the registered mark as a whole and limits exclusivity over individual components unless separately protected, but nevertheless found that the claim that “NOV” was generic or common to the trade did not appeal to it given Novartis's extensive use since 1996 and substantial sales.
The Court expressly rejected the appellants' assertion that there was no likelihood of confusion. Given that both parties operated in pharmaceutical products, including the appellants' involvement in veterinary pharmacy, the Bench held that prima facie confusion and deception could arise between “NOVARTIS” and “NOVIETS.” The argument that “NOVIETS” was merely a corporate/business identity was also rejected as unconvincing, particularly in view of Novartis's recognition as a well-known mark.
Another important aspect of the judgment concerned the limited scope of appellate interference with an interim injunction. The Division Bench relied on the Supreme Court's principles in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd., observing that an appellate court ordinarily should not substitute its own discretion for that of the first-instance court unless the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or perversely, or the settled principles governing interlocutory injunctions have been ignored.
Applying that standard, the Division Bench concluded that the Single Judge had exercised discretion properly and had not ignored the applicable legal principles. The appellants had therefore failed to demonstrate any basis for appellate interference. The Bench also relied on the principles reiterated in Sona Mahindra Pvt. Ltd. v. Sona BLW Precision Forgings Ltd., including the proposition that an appellate court should not interfere merely because it might have reached a different conclusion at the trial stage.
The Division Bench further distinguished the authorities cited by the appellants, including Cadila Health Care, AstraZeneca and Intas Pharmaceuticals. According to the Court, those cases primarily concerned pharmaceutical drug names derived from components or ingredients, whereas the present dispute concerned the names of two pharmaceutical companies, with Novartis having prior use of its mark and Noviets being the subsequent user without an adequate explanation for adoption.
The Delhi High Court ultimately held that the Single Judge's order did not warrant interference. The Division Bench concluded that the appeal filed by Noviets Pharma and the other appellants was devoid of merit and dismissed it. As a result, the interim injunction restraining the appellants from using the “NOVIETS” mark remained in force. The pending application was also dismissed.
However, the Division Bench made an important clarification: its findings were prima facie findings arising from the interlocutory proceedings and would remain subject to the final decision in the underlying suit after trial. The Single Judge was directed to decide the suit independently and without being influenced by the observations contained in the Division Bench's judgment.
The Court's final operative direction reads:
“Accordingly, this appeal, being devoid of merits is dismissed. We uphold the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The pending application is also dismissed.”
The Court further stated:
“Needless to state that our findings in the present order, are prima facie and the same shall be subject to final decision in the suit post trial. The learned Single Judge shall decide the suit without being influenced by any observation(s) made by us in this judgment.”
Also Read: Novartis India Limited Appoints Pharma Veteran Dr Vikas Gupta as MD, CEO
