Delhi High Court
Novartis Ag & Ors vs Noviets Pharma & Ors on 28 February, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 28/02/2026
+ CS(COMM) 218/2024 & I.A. 24963/2025
NOVARTIS AG & ORS. .....Plaintiffs
Versus
NOVIETS PHARMA & ORS. .....Defendants
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Plaintiffs : Mr. Hemant Singh, Ms. Mamta R. Jha,
Ms. Anjeeta Rani, Ms. Pragya Jain &
Mr. Aneesh Raj, Advocates.
For the Defendants : Mr. Davesh Vashishtha & Ms.
Akshatha Deepak, Advocates for
Defendant Nos.1, 2 & 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
JUDGMENT
TEJAS KARIA, J
I.A. 5655/2024
1. This is an Application filed by the Plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules
1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC“) restraining infringement
of the Trade Mark, ‘NOVARTIS’ and ‘ ‘
(“Plaintiffs’ Marks”), passing off, unfair competition, dilution etc.
CS(COMM) 218/2024 Page 1 of 25
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
15:03:21
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS:
2. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs made the following submissions:
2.1. The Plaintiffs are part of the Novartis Group of Companies.
Plaintiff No. 1 is a world leader in the healthcare industry and
specializes in innovation through research and development of
products that improve the health and well-being of patients
around the world. Plaintiff No. 2 is the Indian operating company
which is a subsidiary of Plaintiff No. 1 and is engaged in the
promotion, sale and distribution of products in India from its
parent and its affiliates. Plaintiff No. 2 is the licensee of Plaintiff
No. 1 to use the Plaintiffs’ Marks in India. Plaintiff No. 1 also
markets its pharmaceutical products in India through Plaintiff
No. 3 which is its fully owned subsidiary.
2.2. The Plaintiffs have been present India since 1947 when Plaintiff
No. 2 was incorporated through predecessor-in-interest and have
developed a strong presence over the decades. Thereafter, in the
year 1997, Plaintiff No. 1 incorporated a subsidiary, Novartis
Healthcare Private Limited, i.e., Plaintiff No. 3 for marketing its
products in India. The Plaintiffs and their group companies have
invested huge amounts to create reputation and goodwill.
2.3. The Plaintiffs created and adopted the Plaintiffs’ Marks in the
year 1996 and have been continuously using the Plaintiffs’ Marks
since then, in India and throughout the world. As a consequence
of high standard of quality of the medicines and allied products
and extensive use of the Plaintiffs’ Marks, the same have gained
CS(COMM) 218/2024 Page 2 of 25
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
15:03:21
an enviable and widespread reputation and goodwill in the
relevant market. The Plaintiffs’ Marks denote and connote the
origin and source of goods originating from the Plaintiffs. The
Plaintiffs’ Marks forms a part of the Trade Name of various other
Novartis Group of Companies in other jurisdictions as well and
is a House Mark of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs’ Mark,
‘NOVARTIS’ has been registered since 1996 in over 100
jurisdictions in the world including in India. The details of
registration of the Plaintiffs’ Mark, ‘NOVARTIS’, in India are as
under:
Trade Mark Registration Date of Classes
Number Registration
NOVARTIS 700020 28.02.1996 05
NOVARTIS IRDI-3050272 28.04.2015 01, 03, 05,
09, 10, 16,
29, 30, 31,
32, 35, 40,
41, 42 & 44
711148 11.04.1996 05
2.4. On account of long and continuous use, extensive advertising
campaign, marketing network and enormous sale of the
Plaintiffs’ Marks, the Plaintiffs’ Marks have acquired enviable
goodwill and reputation amongst the members of the trade and
public at large. This formidable goodwill and reputation have
been achieved by the Plaintiffs’ Marks on account of extensive
advertising and promotion through various media, as well as
CS(COMM) 218/2024 Page 3 of 25
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
15:03:21
through extensive sales. Courts have consistently held that
volume of sales and promotion are valid indicia to evaluate
distinctiveness, goodwill and reputation of a Trade Mark. The
annual sales figures of Plaintiff No. 2 for the Financial Years
(“FY”) 2007-08 to FY 2022-23, is as under:
YEAR Net Sales
Turnover
(in INR millions)
2007-2008 5,535
2008-2009 5,995
2009-2010 6,241
2010-2011 7,086
2011-2012 7,928
2012-2013 8,465
2013-2014 8,104
2014-2015 8,122
2015-2016 7,222
2016-2017 5,836
2017-2018 4,980
2018-2019 4,322
2019-2020 3,997
2020-2021 3,565
2021-2022 3,754
2022-2023 3,672
2.5. Defendant No. 1, Noviets Pharma, is an entity engaged in the
business of sale and distribution of pharmaceutical products.
Defendant No. 2, Noviets Veterinary Private Limited is a
company incorporated under The Companies Act, 2013.
Defendant No. 3, Ranjeet Kumar, is the CEO of the Noviets
Group of Companies. Defendant No. 4, Noviets Pharmaceuticals
Private Limited, is a company incorporated under the Companies
CS(COMM) 218/2024 Page 4 of 25
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
15:03:21
Act, 2013. According to Defendant No. 3, there are various
companies under the name Noviets which belong to him
therefore, Defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are all interconnected and
dealing in pharmaceutical and veterinary products under the
Marks, ‘NOVIETS’ and ‘ ‘ (“Impugned
Marks”).
2.6. In the month of January 2024, the Plaintiffs came across the
products of the Defendants under the Impugned Marks on e-
commerce website, Indiamart, which is accessible to customers
in Delhi. In the month of October 2020 also, the Plaintiffs had
come across the Trade Mark Application No. 3785550 filed by
Defendant No. 3 for the registration of the Impugned Mark,
‘NOVIETS’ in Class 05 for goods being ‘Medicinal and
Pharmaceutical Preparations under Class 5’. Thereafter, the
Plaintiffs conducted an online search upon which the Plaintiffs
became aware of Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 as well.
2.7. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs sent various legal notices dated
27.10.2020, 17.07.2021, 11.01.2022 and 24.02.2022 (“Legal
Notices”) to Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3, but the Plaintiffs did not
receive a response to these Legal Notices. The Plaintiffs further
initiated Opposition proceedings against the Trade Mark
Application No. 3785550 filed by Defendant No. 3 for the
registration of the Impugned Mark, ‘NOVIETS’ in Class 05, and
CS(COMM) 218/2024 Page 5 of 25
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
15:03:21
the Trade Mark Application No. 3785550 came to be abandoned
by the Defendants.
2.8. The Plaintiffs further sent a cease and desist notice dated
26.07.2022 to the Trade Marks Agent of Defendant No. 3, upon
which the Plaintiffs received a reply to the Cease and Desist
Notice from Defendant No. 3 stating that the Plaintiffs’ Marks
and the Impugned Marks are completely different and further,
Defendant No. 3 had received registration for the Impugned
Mark, ‘ ‘ under Trade Mark Application No.
3835092. A comparative table of the Plaintiffs’ Marks and the
Impugned Marks is as under:
Plaintiffs' Marks Impugned Marks
NOVARTIS NOVIETS
2.9. The Defendants have adopted the Impugned Marks which are
visually, phonetically and structurally deceptively similar to the
Plaintiffs’ Marks for identical goods being pharmaceuticals. The
colour combination and arrangement of features of the
competing Marks are tell-tale of dishonest adoption and
deliberate imitation. The Defendants have merely replaced the
letters ‘AR’ with ‘IE’ and the letter ‘I’ has been removed from
the Plaintiffs’ Mark, ‘NOVARTIS’ to form the Impugned Mark,
‘NOVIETS’. The description ‘Serving Health Better’ and ‘+’
CS(COMM) 218/2024 Page 6 of 25
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
15:03:21
sign in letter ‘O’ in the Impugned Marks are added matter which
are of no significance to the act of infringement. The Defendants’
adoption and use of the Impugned Marks amounts to
infringement under Section 29(2), (4), (5) and (6) of the Trade
Marks Act, 1999 (“Act”) for which reliance can be placed upon
the judgments in Amritdhara v. Satya Deo, AIR 1963 SC 449,
Corn Products v. Shangrila Food, 1959 SCC OnLine SC 11,
Ruston & Hornsby v. Zamindara Eng., (1969) 2 SCC 727,
Macleods v. Union of India 2023, SCC OnLine Bom 408 (DB),
Medley v. Alkem, 2002 SCC OnLine Bom 444 (DB), Bloomberg
Finance v. Praful, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 4159 and Novartis v.
Novaegis, CS(COMM) 86 of 2023.
2.10. The registration of the Impugned Mark, ‘ ‘ is
not a defence for an infringement action. Under Section 124(5)
of the Act this Court is empowered to grant interim injunction
even against a registered Trade Mark, if such registration violates
proprietary rights of an earlier Trade Mark. The judgments in Raj
Kumar v. Abott, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 7708 (DB), Corza v.
Future Bath, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 153 (DB), Dr. Reddys v.
Fast Cure, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4953, Mankind Pharma v.
Sepkind 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8982 and National Insurance v.
Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 held that an interim injunction
can be granted against the proprietor of a registered trade mark.
CS(COMM) 218/2024 Page 7 of 25
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
15:03:21
2.11. The Supreme Court in S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochna (2016)
2 SCC 683 and N.R. Dongre v. Whirpool, (1996) 5 SCC 714,
have held that the defendant’s trade mark registration is no
defence to the tort of passing off and the same is, therefore,
irrelevant. The proprietary right to a trade mark exists on account
of prior use and the registration merely amounts to recordal
thereof. If there is no prior use, there is no proprietary right, and
none can be conferred by the registration in respect of a Trade
Mark, which is likely to cause confusion or deception or whose
use is detrimental to reputation of an earlier trade mark.
2.12. The pleadings and evidence on record have established that
Plaintiffs’ Marks have acquired formidable goodwill and
reputation as of 2018-19 in India, i.e., the purported and alleged
date of adoption by the Defendants. The annual sales during the
FY 2018-19 were to the tune of ₹4,32,20,00,000 in India. The
Plaintiffs have taken pain to promote the Plaintiffs’ Marks in
Jharkhand and Bihar where Defendants are located, at least since
2007 by extensive activities under its rural program Arogya
Parivar. Therefore, the Defendants were well-aware of the
goodwill and reputation of Plaintiffs’ Marks.
2.13. The Defendants have not only adopted a phonetically and
visually deceptively similar mark but also copied the Plaintiffs’
Mark, ‘ ‘, in terms of colour
combination and placement of features. India being a
CS(COMM) 218/2024 Page 8 of 25
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
15:03:21
multilingual country and there being close phonetic similarity
between the marks, there are high chances of slurring of the mark
‘NOVIETS’ for ‘NOVARTIS’. There exists high likelihood of
confusion and deception apart from likelihood of injurious
association in the minds of consumers. The Supreme Court in
Cadilla Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadilla Pharmaceuticals Ltd, (2001)
5 SCC 73 has held that while judging deceptive similarity
between competing marks used in pharmaceutical sector, stricter
approach is applied. The staff of the pharmacists and chemists
are not always literate, and the handwriting of the doctors is often
illegible, thus confusion and deception is inevitable. Public
interest supports lesser degree of proof showing confusing
similarity in the case of trade mark in respect of medicinal
products as against other non-medicinal products. Confusion
between medicinal products may be life threatening, not merely
inconvenient and could have dire effects on public health.
2.14. This Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present Suit as the
Defendants are carrying on business from within the jurisdiction
of this Court through the interactive website of IndiaMart.
Further, the ‘Contact us’ page on Defendants’ IndiaMart page
shows the Defendants’ place of business as ‘Delhi’. Only
averments in the Plaint are to be looked into for the purpose of
jurisdiction. The principle of dynamic effect and mere looming
presence on the internet will also confer jurisdiction on this
Court. Notwithstanding, as per the Defendants’ own admission /
CS(COMM) 218/2024 Page 9 of 25
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
15:03:21
documents they are carrying on business all across India and not
exclusively in Bihar & Jharkhand. This Court in judgment dated
24.11.2025 in Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Artura
Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., CS(COMM) 1038/2024, held that
the question whether the contact us page of the impugned
website has led to sales in Delhi would require to be examined
by way of evidence by both the parties and therefore the extent
and nature of the defendant’s online activities, mentioning of the
impugned marks on the website having contact us page are
sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of this Court and permit the
suit to move forward rather than returning the plaint at the
preliminary stage.
2.15. The Plaintiffs have made a prima facie case of infringement and
passing off in their favor as the Defendants have adopted
deceptively similar Marks for goods identical as those of the
Plaintiffs under the Plaintiffs’ Marks which were adopted prior
to the adoption of the Impugned Marks. The balance of
convenience is in Plaintiffs’ favor, and the Defendants have only
started business under the Impugned Marks allegedly in the year
2018, much subsequent to the Plaintiffs. Irreparable injury will
be caused to the Plaintiffs’ reputation and goodwill if Defendants
are not injuncted as Plaintiffs have no control over quality of
products sold by Defendants and sub-standard products / services
will lead to tarnishing the Plaintiffs’ Marks.
CS(COMM) 218/2024 Page 10 of 25
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
15:03:21
2.16. It has been settled in the judgments in Midas Hygiene v. Sudhir
Bhatia, (2004) 3 SCC 90, BK Engineering v. Ubhi, ILR (1985)
I Delhi (DB), TV Venugopal v. Ushodaya Enterprises, (2011) 4
SCC 85 and Lakshmikant Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah, (2002) 3
SCC 65, that in cases of infringement and passing off, injunction
must follow. The Defendants’ conduct is mala fide, dishonest and
unlawful and amounts to infringement of Plaintiffs’ Marks,
passing off and unfair competition. Being in the identical
business of pharmaceuticals, the Defendants ought to be aware
of the Plaintiffs’ Marks.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT NOS. 1 TO 3:
3. The learned Counsel for Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 made the following
submissions:
3.1. The present Suit has been wrongly instituted by the Plaintiffs,
who seek to restrain the Defendants from carrying on their bona
fide business under the Impugned Marks. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3
are independent, small-scale enterprises based in Begusarai and
Patna, Bihar, engaged in the legitimate trade of pharmaceuticals
and veterinary products under the Trade Name, ‘Noviets
Veterinary Private Limited’. The adoption of the Impugned
Marks is honest, distinctive, and unconnected to the Plaintiffs’
Marks, which are neither visually, phonetically, nor structurally
similar. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3’s operations are confined to
localized offline markets in Bihar. There is no business, sale, or
solicitation by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 within the jurisdiction ofCS(COMM) 218/2024 Page 11 of 25
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
15:03:21
Delhi. Consequently, no cause of action has arisen in Delhi
within the meaning of Section 20 of the CPC and the Plaint is
liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
3.2. The Plaintiffs, by invoking Section 134(2) of the Act, are
attempting to misuse the additional forum provision to institute
proceedings in a jurisdiction that has no connection with the
present dispute. The Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 website is merely
passive and informational and does not enable any commercial
transactions. Mere accessibility of such a website cannot confer
jurisdiction on this Court. The Plaintiffs have also deliberately
undervalued the suit, contrary to the requirements of Section 12
of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, only to improperly invoke
the jurisdiction of this Court. The present proceedings are,
therefore, vexatious, amount to forum shopping, and constitute
an abuse of process, liable to be dismissed at the very threshold.
3.3. It is a settled principle that if, on a meaningful reading of the
plaint, it appears to be vexatious, meritless, or discloses no real
cause of action, the Court must reject it. The Supreme Court in
Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanushali, (2020) 7 SCC 366
has clarified that clever drafting cannot be permitted to create an
illusion of a cause of action. Similarly, this Court in St. Ives
Laboratories Inc. v. Arif Perfumers, (2009) 40 PTC 104, held
that the absence of evidence of business within jurisdiction
disentitles the plaintiff from maintaining the suit. Applying theseCS(COMM) 218/2024 Page 12 of 25
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
15:03:21
principles, the plaint filed by the Plaintiffs herein discloses no
cause of action in Delhi and the Plaint is liable to be rejected.
3.4. The Plaintiffs’ reliance on Section 134(2) of the Act is also
wholly misplaced. The Supreme Court in Indian Performing
Right Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia, (2015) 10 SCC 161 has held
that the said provision cannot be misused for forum shopping,
and that the plaintiff cannot institute a suit in a forum having no
nexus with the dispute merely because it carries on business
there. In the present case, the Plaintiffs have a pan-India presence
yet deliberately chosen Delhi despite no part of the cause of
action arising here.
3.5. The Impugned Marks are visually, structurally, and phonetically
distinct from the Plaintiffs’ Marks. The prefix ‘NOV’ is a
common expression in the pharmaceutical industry, derived from
‘nova’ or ‘new,’ and is widely used by numerous third parties.
The Plaintiffs cannot claim monopoly over such a generic
expression. When compared as a whole, the overall look, sound,
and impression of the Impugned Mark ‘NOVIETS’ differs
significantly from that of the Plaintiffs’ Mark, ‘NOVARTIS’, and
the average consumer exercising ordinary caution will not be
confused or deceived. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 adopted the
Impugned Marks honestly and independently for the purpose of
their business. The adoption was bona fide, unconnected to the
Plaintiffs’ Marks, and without any mala fide intent. Defendant
Nos. 1 to 3 have used the Impugned Marks for their independent
CS(COMM) 218/2024 Page 13 of 25
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
15:03:21
business in Bihar without attempting to ride upon the Plaintiffs’
goodwill or reputation.
3.6. The Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are using the Mark, ‘NOVIETS’ only
as their Trade Name and not as a brand name for any
pharmaceutical product or medicine. The adoption of ‘Noviets
Pharma’ is strictly in the capacity of a business identifier and not
as a Trade Mark for goods. The products marketed by Defendant
Nos. 1 to 3 are sold under different and independent brand
names, each of which carries its own distinct packaging, logos,
and trade dress. In such circumstances, the Plaintiffs’ allegation
of Trade Mark infringement is wholly misconceived, as the
alleged use is not in relation to any goods or services but merely
as a trade name. The Act does not prohibit the bona fide use of
one’s own Trade Name, especially where the same is adopted
honestly and without mala fide intent. The Plaintiffs have not
produced any material to demonstrate that Defendant Nos. 1 to 3
are using ‘NOVIETS’ as a product brand so as to cause confusion
in the minds of consumers. The present matter is, therefore,
unfounded and unsustainable.
3.7. The Plaintiffs have failed to establish infringement or passing
off. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 products are distributed solely through
offline channels in Bihar and are marketed under distinct
packaging, trade dress, and logos. The Plaintiffs’ allegations of
copying colour schemes or devices are bald assertions,
unsupported by documentary evidence. It is trite law that passing
CS(COMM) 218/2024 Page 14 of 25
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
15:03:21
off requires proof of misrepresentation, likelihood of confusion,
and damage to goodwill. In Impresario Entertainment &
Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. S&D Hospitality, 2018 SCC OnLine Del
6392, this Court reiterated that mere assertions, without evidence
of targeting or confusion, are insufficient. Similarly, in Karans
Gurukul Classes v. Gurukul Classes IIT Division, 2019 SCC
OnLine Del 8444, this Court held that mere interactivity or
similarity in name is not enough, the plaintiff must prove actual
targeting of customers in the jurisdiction. No such evidence has
been led here. The Plaintiffs’ claims are therefore unfounded.
3.8. The Plaintiffs’ claim of dilution under Section 29(4) of the Act is
wholly untenable. To establish dilution, the Plaintiffs must
demonstrate reputation in India, the use of the Impugned Marks
without due cause, and unfair advantage or detriment caused to
the distinctive character of the Plaintiffs’ Marks. None of these
elements are satisfied here. The adoption of the Impugned Marks
is bona fide, honest, and geographically confined to Bihar. There
is no use without due cause, nor any unfair advantage taken. This
Court in Pankaj Ravjibhai v. SSS Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd., 2023
SCC OnLine Del 7013 reiterated that a claim of dilution requires
strict proof, and bald assertions are insufficient. No such proof
has been furnished by the Plaintiffs in the present case. The
allegations of dilution and unfair competition are therefore
misconceived and unsustainable.
CS(COMM) 218/2024 Page 15 of 25
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
15:03:21
3.9. It is evident that the present Suit is devoid of merits and has been
instituted in a forum with no territorial nexus to the Defendants.
The Plaintiffs have deliberately indulged in forum shopping,
undervalued the Suit to invoke pecuniary jurisdiction
improperly, and advanced baseless allegations of infringement,
passing off, and dilution, none of which stand the test of law. The
Defendants’ adoption and use of the Impugned Marks is bona
fide, honest, and entirely distinct from the Plaintiffs’ mark, and
no cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this Court.
Accordingly, this Court may be pleased to dismiss the Plaint at
the threshold under Order VII Rules 10 and 11 of CPC.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
Territorial Jurisdiction
4. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 contend that even though the Plaintiffs have filed
the present Suit before this Court, no cause of action arises in Delhi, as
Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are dealing with the pharmaceutical and veterinary
products in localised offline markets in Begusarai and Patna, Bihar and,
therefore, the cause of action for the present Suit has arisen in Begusarai and
Patna, Bihar. Further, Defendant Nos. 1 to 3’s online listing is merely passive
and informative and does not enable any commercial transaction and
Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are located in Begusarai and Patna, Bihar. Therefore,
according to Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, Begusarai and Patna, Bihar is the proper
jurisdiction for hearing the present Suit. Per contra, the Plaintiffs have
submitted that since a part of the cause of action has arisen in Delhi, the
present Suit can be filed in Delhi. The Plaintiff contends that when a cause of
CS(COMM) 218/2024 Page 16 of 25
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
15:03:21
action arises in more than one place, the Plaintiffs have the right to file the
Suit in any one of those places.
5. At this preliminary stage, the objection to jurisdiction is to be decided
by demurrer, thereby all pleaded facts are assumed to be true, and the
Plaintiffs are not required to prove those facts through leading evidence. The
demurrer principle requires the Court to assume the correctness of all
averments made in the Plaint and determine whether, even while accepting
those facts to be true, the Court lacks jurisdiction as a matter of law.
6. It is settled law that when jurisdiction is challenged by way of demurrer
and not at trial, the objection must proceed on the basis that the facts as
pleaded are true, and the objection can succeed only if it is demonstrated that
granted those facts, the Court does not have jurisdiction as a matter of law. In
Trade Mark infringement and passing off suits, Section 20 of the CPC governs
territorial jurisdiction, which arises where the wrong has occurred or where
the cause of action, in whole or in part, arises within the jurisdiction of the
Court.
7. The Plaintiffs have pleaded that this Court has the jurisdiction to
entertain the present Suit as the Defendants are carrying on business from
within the jurisdiction of this Court through the website of IndiaMart. Further,
the ‘Contact us’ page on Defendants’ IndiaMart page shows the Defendants’
place of business as ‘Delhi’. In view of the same, the principle of dynamic
effect and mere looming presence on the internet will confer jurisdiction on
this Court as the Defendants have themselves shown their place of business
at Delhi and have not denied the fact of mentioning such fact.
CS(COMM) 218/2024 Page 17 of 25
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
15:03:21
8. Accordingly, it is prima facie shown that the Defendants have made its
products accessible to consumers in Delhi through internet platforms, and that
the Defendants are purposefully availing itself of the forum by maintaining
an online presence that is accessible to and targets consumers in Delhi by
mentioning the place of business as Delhi thereby creating the potential for
confusion and deception among Delhi-based consumers.
9. The Defendant Nos. 1 to 3’s contention that the IndiaMart listing for
the Defendant’s product is merely passive and does not facilitate commercial
transactions requires further leading of evidence and cannot be conclusively
determined at this stage without examination of the complete functionality of
the ‘Contact Us’ page of the Defendants’ IndiaMart listing. The functionality
of the Defendants’ IndiaMart listing can reasonably be construed as
facilitating commercial transactions, and the question as to whether the same
amounts to sufficient interactivity to establish jurisdiction, is a mixed question
of law and fact requiring determination at the stage of trial.
10. As has been held by this Court in in Sun Pharmaceutical (supra), that
the question whether the ‘contact us’ page of the impugned website has led to
sales in Delhi would require to be examined by way of evidence by both the
parties and, therefore, the factum of extent and nature of the defendant’s
online activities, mentioning of the impugned marks on the website having
‘contact us’ page are sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of this Court and
permit the suit to move forward rather than returning the plaint at the
preliminary stage.
CS(COMM) 218/2024 Page 18 of 25
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
15:03:21
11. In view of the above, the plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction is
rejected at this prima facie stage. The Defendants would always have the right
to raise the issue of territorial jurisdiction at the stage of trial.
Deceptive Similarity of the Impugned Marks to the Plaintiffs’ Marks
12. The Plaintiffs have pleaded that the Plaintiffs’ Marks serve as source
indicator for the products provided by the Plaintiffs and, therefore, the
Plaintiffs’ Marks have attained a distinctive character and have become
identifiers, and distinguish the goods of the Plaintiffs from those of other
parties, including, from those of the Defendants. By extensive, continuous,
and prolonged usage, the public at large commonly associates the Mark
‘NOVARTIS’, with the Plaintiff. The Impugned Marks are deceptively similar
to the Plaintiffs’ Marks. The Plaintiffs have obtained registrations over the
Mark, ‘NOVARTIS’, in Class 05, with the earliest registration in the year
1996.
13. The Plaintiffs are one of the largest manufacturers of pharmaceutical
products across the globe and in India. The Defendants are manufacturing and
selling pharmaceutical products under the Impugned Marks.
14. The test of infringement and passing off laid down in the decisions of
in Amritdhara Pharmacy (supra), Corn Products (supra), Ruston & Hornsby
(supra), Macleods (supra), Medley (supra), Bloomberg Finance (supra) and
Novartis (supra) have been made out in the present case. The Plaintiffs’ Marks
and the Impugned Marks are deceptively similar, they are visually and
phonetically similar, the nature of the rival Marks is similar, the consumer
base and the class of consumers is also similar. The Plaintiffs and the
Defendants are dealing in a similar category and class of products. The
CS(COMM) 218/2024 Page 19 of 25
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
15:03:21
Plaintiffs have established that the Defendants have not only infringed the
Plaintiffs’ Marks, but the Defendants have also tried to pass off the
Defendants’ products as the products of the Plaintiffs.
15. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 submission is that Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are
using the Mark, ‘NOVIETS’ only as their Trade Name and not as a brand
name for any pharmaceutical product or medicine. The adoption of ‘Noviets
Pharma’ is strictly in the capacity of a business identifier and not as a Trade
Mark for goods. However, this submission does not constitute a valid defence
against infringement or passing off.
16. In cases of infringement and passing off of Trade Marks an injunction
must follow and as held in Midas Hygiene (supra), BK Engineering v. Ubhi,
(supra), TV Venugopal (supra) and Lakshmikant Patel (supra). Accordingly,
the Defendants have failed show a plausible reason as to how the Defendants
came up with the Impugned Marks, accordingly, prima facie the use of the
Impugned Marks is dishonest.
Goodwill and Reputation
17. The Plaintiffs have demonstrated the goodwill and reputation acquired
by the Plaintiffs’ Marks. Plaintiff No. 2 has earned significant revenue of
₹3,67,20,00,000 for the FY 2022-2023 in India by selling the Plaintiffs’
products under the Plaintiffs’ Marks. The Plaintiffs are promoting the
Plaintiffs’ Marks through the Plaintiffs’ websites, which are accessible in
India and generates huge traffic.
18. It is implausible that the Defendants were not aware of the Plaintiffs
and the Plaintiffs’ Marks considering the overwhelming goodwill of the
Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the use of the Impugned Marks, is prima facie
CS(COMM) 218/2024 Page 20 of 25
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
15:03:21
dishonest and appears to be an attempt to ride on the goodwill and reputation
of the Plaintiffs’ Marks.
Likelihood of Confusion
19. The likelihood of confusion amongst the minds of the consumers is
very high given the allied and cognate nature of goods. The use of the
Impugned Marks by the Defendants is likely to cause confusion that the
Defendants are connected with the Plaintiffs as the Impugned Marks are
deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ Marks. It is trite law that mere likelihood
of confusion is enough to establish a case of infringement of Trade Marks and
actual confusion is not required to be demonstrated.
20. Further, the test of confusion is to be seen from the perspective of an
average person with imperfect recollection getting confused and in view of
the Plaintiffs’ Marks and the Impugned Marks being almost identical, any
ordinary person would get confused and would not be able to distinguish
between the Plaintiff’s Marks and the Impugned Marks. Replacing the letters
‘AR’ with ‘IE’ and removing the letter ‘I’ from the Plaintiffs’ Mark,
‘NOVARTIS’ to form the Impugned Mark, ‘NOVIETS’, is not enough to
distinguish the goods of the Defendants from those of the Plaintiffs. A
consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection would be unable
to distinguish between the competing products. The substantial similarity in
the competing Trade Marks coupled with the confined branding space,
significantly increases the risk of confusion in the minds of the public.
21. As has been pleaded by the Plaintiffs that the Defendants have not only
adopted a phonetically and visually deceptively similar Mark but also adopted
CS(COMM) 218/2024 Page 21 of 25
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
15:03:21
the Impugned Mark, ‘ ‘ which has been copied from the
Plaintiffs’ Mark, ‘ ‘ in terms of colour
combination and placement of features. India being a multilingual country and
there being close phonetic similarity between the rival Marks, there are high
chances of slurring of the Mark ‘NOVIETS’ for ‘NOVARTIS’. There exists
high likelihood of confusion and deception apart from likelihood of injurious
association in the minds of consumers. The Supreme Court in Cadilla
Healthcare (supra) has held that while judging deceptive similarity between
competing marks used in pharmaceutical sector, stricter approach is required.
The staff of the pharmacists and chemists are not always literate and the
handwriting of the doctors are often illegible, thus confusion and deception is
inevitable. Public interest supports lesser degree of proof showing confusing
similarity in the case of trade mark in respect of medicinal products as against
other non-medicinal products. Confusion between medicinal products may be
life threatening, not merely inconvenient and could have dire effect on public
health.
22. It is settled law that the ‘initial interest confusion’ test proceeds on the
principle that confusion in the minds of consumers may arise at the
preliminary stage, prior to the actual purchase being completed. At the point
of finalising the transaction, the consumer may no longer be in doubt as to the
true origin of the goods or services. Nonetheless, even such transient
confusion at the initial stage is sufficient to meet the requirement of deceptive
similarity under Section 29 of the Act. The infringer’s objective may be served
CS(COMM) 218/2024 Page 22 of 25
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
15:03:21
merely by diverting the consumer’s initial attention. The consumer may,
thereafter, consciously opt for the infringer’s product on account of its own
characteristics, with complete knowledge that it is unconnected with the
registered Trade Mark. The Defendants’ use of the Impugned Marks appears
to be with intent of causing confusion in the minds of the customers to
increase the revenue of the Defendants by adopting the Impugned Marks
which are deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ Marks.
Passing Off:
23. The Plaintiffs have made a prima facie case of passing off as they have
shown substantial goodwill for the goods under the Plaintiffs’ Marks through
the revenue earned by the Plaintiffs and the awards received by the Plaintiffs
in the field of medicines across the globe and in India. As the Plaintiffs have
been able to demonstrate the likelihood of confusion, the Plaintiffs are likely
to suffer loss of reputation, if the goods of the Defendants are allowed to pass
off as those of the Plaintiffs.
Generic and Common to Trade
24. It is contended by the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 that the prefix ‘NOV’ is
generic and common to trade and is derived from the word ‘Nova’ or ‘New’.
The Defendants have themselves applied for the registration of the Impugned
Marks. The defence of the use of the prefix ‘NOV’ being common to trade is
not available to the Defendants as the Defendants themselves have applied for
the registration of the Impugned Marks. The Defendants are not allowed to
approbate and reprobate and take contrary stands. Having sought registration
over the Impugned Marks, the Defendants cannot claim that the prefix ‘NOV’
is common to trade.
CS(COMM) 218/2024 Page 23 of 25
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
15:03:21
25. The Plaintiffs’ Marks have amassed considerable goodwill and are
neither generic, descriptive or common to trade. The Mark, ‘NOVARTIS’ with
respect to pharmaceuticals is linked exclusively with the Plaintiffs and
therefore the defence of generic and common to trade is not available to the
Defendants.
Dominant Feature Test
26. The dominant feature of the Impugned Marks is the prefix ‘NOV’,
which is identical to the suffix in the Plaintiffs’ Mark, ‘NOVARTIS’ which is
being used by the Plaintiffs since 1996. Applying the dominant feature test to
the present case, the dominant feature of the Impugned Marks is clearly the
prefix ‘NOV’ and the Impugned Mark, ‘NOVIETS’ is also deceptively similar
to the Plaintiff’s Mark, ‘NOVARTIS’.
27. The dominant feature of the Plaintiffs’ Marks and the Impugned Marks,
i.e., the prefix ‘NOV’, is identical. Applying the dominant feature test, a prima
facie case of infringement is made out.
CONCLUSION
28. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel
for the Parties, the pleadings and documents on record, a strong prima facie
case has been made out on behalf of the Plaintiffs for grant of an interim
injunction.
29. This is a case of triple identity where the Plaintiffs’ Marks and the
Impugned Marks are deceptively similar, the product category is identical and
the trade channel as also the consumer base is identical. The identity in the
Impugned Marks is so close to the Plaintiffs’ Marks that they are
indistinguishable.
CS(COMM) 218/2024 Page 24 of 25
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
15:03:21
30. The Plaintiffs have established their prior user and registration as well
as goodwill and reputation, based on the documents on record. Injunction is a
relief in equity, and in view of the aforesaid discussion, the balance of
convenience is in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants. Grave
prejudice is likely to be caused to the Plaintiffs if interim injunction as prayed
for is not granted in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants.
31. In view of the above analysis, it is directed that the Defendants, their
directors, proprietors, partners, associates, assigns or assignees in interest,
heirs, successors or successors in interest, permitted assigns, sister concerns
or group companies, distributors, dealers, wholesalers, retailers, stockiest,
agents and all others acting for and on their behalf are restrained from using,
soliciting and advertising in any manner including on the internet and e-
commerce platform, directly or indirectly dealing in pharmaceuticals and
veterinary products under the Impugned Marks, ‘NOVIETS’ and
‘ ‘, either as a Trade Mark and / or Trade Name and / or
any other Trade Mark which is identical and / or deceptively similar to the
Plaintiffs’ Marks, ‘NOVARTIS’ and ‘ ‘ so as to
cause infringement and / or passing off of the Plaintiffs’ Marks.
32. The present Application stands disposed of.
TEJAS KARIA, J
FEBRUARY 28, 2026
‘AK’
CS(COMM) 218/2024 Page 25 of 25
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
15:03:21