Delhi High Court Upholds Injunction Against Noviets Pharma Over 'NOVIETS' Mark, Citing Deceptive Similarity to Novartis
核心洞察
The Delhi High Court's Division Bench dismissed Noviets Pharma (搜索)'s appeal, upholding the interim injunction restraining use of the "NOVIETS (搜索)" mark due to deceptive similarity with Novartis's "NOVARTIS" trademark.
The Court found Novartis established substantial goodwill through continuous use since 1996, with Indian net sales of INR 3,672 million in 2022–23.
The Bench endorsed the Single Judge's "triple identity" finding—similar marks, identical product category, and identical/similar trade channels—and noted Noviets (搜索) failed to explain its adoption of the mark.
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has upheld an interim injunction restraining Noviets Pharma (搜索) and related entities from using the "NOVIETS (搜索)" mark, finding it deceptively similar to Novartis AG's established "NOVARTIS" trademark. The judgment, delivered on August 17, 2026 by Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, dismissed the appeal against the Single Judge's order dated February 28, 2026, which had granted temporary protection to Novartis AG and its Indian entities.
The dispute concerns the use of the trademark "NOVIETS (搜索)" by Noviets Pharma (搜索), which operates in the pharmaceutical and veterinary-products sector, and its alleged similarity to "NOVARTIS," the mark of Novartis AG and its associated Indian entities. The Division Bench was 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.
Background and Claims
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. The company stated that the "NOVARTIS" trademark was adopted in 1996 and had been continuously used thereafter, resulting in substantial goodwill and reputation. The mark was registered in India across several classes, and Novartis asserted that it had been registered in more than 100 countries. The record contained substantial sales figures, with net sales reported at INR 3,672 million in 2022–23.
Novartis also argued that "NOVARTIS" had been recognised as a well-known trademark in India and in various WIPO and INDRP proceedings. The company submitted that Noviets (搜索) had failed to provide any credible explanation for adopting the coined expression "NOVIETS," despite its close resemblance to the established Novartis mark—an absence that, Novartis argued, supported the inference that the adoption was not bona fide and was intended to benefit from the goodwill associated with "NOVARTIS."
The Appellants' Arguments
Noviets Pharma (搜索) challenged the Single Judge's order, arguing that "NOVARTIS" and "NOVIETS (搜索)" were fundamentally different when viewed as complete marks. Counsel for the appellants contended 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. They maintained that 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 described the "NOVIETS (搜索)" 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 argued that the only common element was the prefix "NOV," while the remaining portions—"ARTIS" and "IETS"—were materially different. They further contended that pronunciation differed, with "Novartis" 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. They also argued that "NOVIETS (搜索)" was being used as a corporate/business identity rather than as the brand name of pharmaceutical products, and 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.
The Court's Findings
The Division Bench substantially agreed with the reasoning of the Single Judge. On the central trademark issue, the Court noted that both parties were engaged in pharmaceutical businesses, with Noviets (搜索) dealing in veterinary products, and agreed that the competing goods and consumer base were sufficiently similar to create a substantial risk of confusion.
The Court gave considerable weight to Novartis's long-standing use and commercial reputation, noting 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 agreed with the Single Judge that pharmaceutical trademarks require greater caution because "confusion between medicines can have serious or even life-threatening consequences."
The Court endorsed the Single Judge's description of the case as involving "triple identity"—similar marks, identical product category and identical/similar trade channels—as significant in assessing the balance of convenience and potential irreparable harm. Importantly, the Court noted that Noviets (搜索) had "failed to provide a plausible explanation for how they arrived at the mark 'Noviets,'" and that the adoption "appears" to have been "dishonest" and "an attempt to benefit from the goodwill possessed by" Novartis.
On the appellants' argument concerning the common prefix "NOV," the Court accepted the general proposition that composite marks should ordinarily be assessed in their entirety, but held that the argument did not carry sufficient weight in the circumstances. The Bench noted that Section 17 protects the registered mark as a whole and limits exclusivity over individual components unless separately protected, yet 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.
Jurisdiction and Appellate Standard
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.
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 Bench concluded that the Single Judge had exercised discretion properly and that the appellants had failed to demonstrate any basis for appellate interference.
Outcome
The Delhi High Court ultimately held that the Single Judge's order did not warrant interference, concluding that the appeal filed by Noviets Pharma (搜索) and the other appellants was devoid of merit and dismissing it. As a result, the interim injunction restraining the appellants from using the "NOVIETS (搜索)" mark remained in force.
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 Bench made an important clarification that 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.