Use Of Letters ‘A’ And ‘Z’ Cannot Be Monopolized: Delhi High Court Refuses Interim Injunction In Alkem–Prevego Trademark Dispute

The Court was hearing an application seeking restraint against the defendant from using the mark “MULTIVEIN AZ” for nutraceutical products, on the ground that it infringed Alkem’s registered trademarks “A TO Z”, “A TO Z-NS” and associated trade dress.

A Bench of Justice Tejas Karia, who vacated the earlier ex parte injunction and dismissed the plaintiff’s application for interim relief, observed: “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.”

Background

Alkem Laboratories Limited claimed long and continuous use of the trademark “A TO Z” since 1998 in relation to multivitamin and nutraceutical products, asserting that the mark had acquired goodwill, secondary meaning, and distinctiveness.

The plaintiff alleged that Prevego Healthcare’s use of the mark “MULTIVEIN AZ” for pharmaceutical tablets was deceptively similar, amounted to trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright infringement in its logo and trade dress.

An ex-parte ad-interim injunction had earlier been granted restraining Prevego from using the impugned mark. The defendant thereafter sought vacation of the injunction, contending that “A TO Z” was a descriptive and generic expression incapable of monopolisation.

Court’s Observations

The Court examined whether the plaintiff could claim exclusive rights over the letters ‘A’ and ‘Z’ and whether the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s marks.

It held that the expression “A TO Z” conveys completeness or comprehensiveness and, in the context of multivitamin and nutraceutical products, describes the nature of the goods themselves. The Court observed that vitamins are commonly denoted by alphabetic nomenclature, and the phrase “A TO Z” merely signifies a range of vitamins.

It further noted that the plaintiff’s trademarks were device marks and not word marks, and registration of a device mark does not confer exclusive rights over individual letters or words forming part of the mark.

Applying the anti-dissection rule, the Court held that trademarks must be compared as a whole. It found that the addition of the word “MULTIVEIN” in the defendant’s mark materially altered its visual, phonetic, and conceptual identity, eliminating any likelihood of confusion.

The Court also found that Alkem had failed to disclose earlier trademark applications and opposition proceedings relating to “A TO Z” in Class 5, and held that such concealment disentitled it from equitable relief.

On copyright infringement, the Court held that while artistic expression may be protected, copyright cannot be used to prevent the use of common alphabets in a different stylistic manner.

Conclusion

Holding that the plaintiff had no exclusive right over the letters ‘A’ and ‘Z’, and that the impugned mark was neither identical nor deceptively similar, the Delhi High Court dismissed the application seeking an interim injunction.

Accordingly, the ex-parte ad-interim injunction earlier granted against Prevego Healthcare was vacated, and both interlocutory applications were disposed of.

Cause Title: Alkem Laboratories Limited v. Prevego Healthcare and Research Private Limited (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:411)

Appearances

Plaintiff: Senior Advocate Darpan Wadhwa, with Tusha Malhotra, Bhavya Chhabra and Rhea Bhalla, Advocates.

Defendant: Senior Advocate Arundhati Katju, with Siddharth Acharya, Udit Malik, Ritika Meena and Lakshay Sharma, Advocates.

Click here to read/download Judgment