The plaintiffs, Novartis AG and its affiliate, are globally recognized pharmaceutical companies engaged in the manufacture, marketing, research, and development of high-quality pharmaceutical products. They are the registered proprietors of the trademark "NOVARTIS," which has been in use since 1996 and is registered in multiple jurisdictions, including India. The plaintiffs contended that the defendants, operating under the name "Novitas Lifesciences," had adopted the mark "NOVITAS," which was almost identical to "NOVARTIS" both phonetically and visually. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' use of the impugned mark for pharmaceutical products amounted to trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition, creating a likelihood of consumer confusion. They sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark "NOVITAS" or any deceptively similar variant.

Issues
The primary issue before the court was whether the defendants' adoption and use of the mark "NOVITAS" amounted to infringement of the plaintiffs' registered trademark "NOVARTIS." Additionally, the court had to determine whether the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for the grant of an interim injunction to prevent further use of the allegedly infringing mark pending final adjudication.

Submissions of Parties
The plaintiffs submitted that the mark "NOVARTIS" was a well-known trademark under Indian law, enjoying statutory and common law protection. They argued that the defendants had dishonestly adopted "NOVITAS" by merely rearranging the letters of "NOVARTIS," demonstrating bad faith and an intention to ride upon the plaintiffs' goodwill. The plaintiffs also pointed out that the defendants' domain name "novitaslifesciences.com" and their presence on e-commerce platforms compounded the risk of consumer deception. They further contended that confusion in the pharmaceutical sector posed serious public health risks. The defendants failed to appear before the court, despite being duly served with summons.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
The court observed that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. It noted that the marks "NOVARTIS" and "NOVITAS" were deceptively similar, both visually and phonetically, which could mislead an average consumer with imperfect recollection. Given the identical nature of the goods—pharmaceutical products—the likelihood of confusion was significantly high. The court emphasized that in the pharmaceutical industry, confusion between two brands could have grave consequences for consumers. It also found that the defendants' continued use of "NOVITAS" would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiffs, as it could lead to dilution of the well-known "NOVARTIS" mark. The balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiffs, as allowing the defendants to continue using "NOVITAS" would unfairly exploit the plaintiffs' reputation.

Decision of the Judge
The court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, distributors, and affiliates from using the mark "NOVITAS" or any other deceptively similar trademark for medicinal or pharmaceutical preparations. The defendants were also prohibited from using "NOVITAS" in their trade name, domain name, or any promotional material. The court clarified that the defendants were free to carry on their business under a different name that was not deceptively similar to "NOVARTIS." The matter was listed for further proceedings, with directions for filing replies and rejoinders within stipulated timelines.

Case Title: Novartis AG & Anr. v. Novitas Lifesciences & Anr.
Date of Order: February 3, 2025
Case No.: CS(COMM) 97/2025
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539