Appellate courts must not disturb reasoned interim injunctions absent perversity, arbitrariness, or legal error.

Novartis AG and its Indian entities claimed prior adoption and continuous use of the registered mark “NOVARTIS” since 1996 in the pharmaceutical sector, supported by substantial goodwill, reputation and sales in India.

Noviets Pharma and its associated entities adopted and used the mark “NOVIETS” in connection with their pharmaceutical and veterinary businesses.

Novartis instituted a commercial suit and sought an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, alleging infringement and passing off.

The learned Single Judge prima facie held that “NOVIETS” was deceptively similar to “NOVARTIS”, that the parties operated in allied pharmaceutical markets, and that the use of “NOVIETS” as a trade or corporate name did not defeat the infringement or passing-off claim.

An interim injunction was accordingly granted.

The defendants appealed, contending that the marks were dissimilar, “NOV” was common to the trade, “NOVIETS” was used only as a corporate identity, and that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction.

1. Whether the Delhi High Court had prima facie territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the basis of the appellants’ IndiaMART listing and online presence showing Delhi as a place of business?

2. Whether the marks “NOVARTIS” and “NOVIETS”, considered in the context of the parties’ pharmaceutical businesses, were deceptively similar so as to establish a prima facie case of infringement and passing off?

3. Whether the use of “NOVIETS” as a corporate or trade name, rather than as the brand name of individual pharmaceutical products, constituted a valid defence?

4. Whether the appellate court should interfere with the learned Single Judge’s discretionary order granting an interim injunction?

The Court applied Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC governing interlocutory injunctions, along with the principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.

Under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, Section 17 protects a registered composite mark as a whole and generally does not confer exclusive rights over individual components unless separately protected.

Section 29(5) recognises infringement where a registered mark is used as part of a trade name in relation to the goods or services for which it is registered.

The Court relied on Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2001 INSC 173, for the principle that pharmaceutical marks require a stricter assessment of deceptive similarity because confusion may have serious consequences.

It also applied Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd., 1990 Supp SCC 727, under which an appellate court should not interfere with a trial court’s discretionary interlocutory order unless the discretion is arbitrary, capricious, perverse or contrary to settled principles.

A plea that a mark or its component is common to the trade must be supported by evidence of actual third-party use; mere register entries are insufficient.

The Court held that the territorial-jurisdiction objection could not be conclusively determined at the interlocutory stage.

The IndiaMART listing showed Delhi as the appellants’ place of business and made their products accessible to Delhi consumers; whether the listing was passive or sufficiently interactive was a mixed question of fact and law requiring evidence at trial.

On deceptive similarity, the Court accepted that composite marks must be assessed as a whole, but found that the common and prominent “NOV” element, the overall resemblance between “NOVARTIS” and “NOVIETS”, the parties’ involvement in pharmaceutical and veterinary products, and overlapping or allied trade channels created a prima facie likelihood of confusion.

Novartis’s prior use since 1996, substantial sales, reputation and recognition as a well-known mark strengthened its claim, while the appellants failed to provide a plausible explanation for adopting the coined expression “NOVIETS”.

The assertion that “NOV” was publici juris was unsupported by evidence of actual third-party commercial use.

Further, use of “NOVIETS” as a corporate or business identifier did not avoid liability, particularly as it was the dominant feature of the appellants’ pharmaceutical trading style and Section 29(5) expressly addresses such use.

Given the potential public-interest consequences of confusion between pharmaceutical marks, the balance of convenience and risk of irreparable harm favoured Novartis.

The Single Judge’s exercise of discretion was neither arbitrary nor perverse and therefore warranted no appellate interference.

The Court held that Delhi jurisdiction was prima facie established, that Novartis had demonstrated a strong prima facie case of infringement and passing off, and that the corporate-name use of “NOVIETS” was not a valid defence.

The pending application was also dismissed.

The Court clarified that its findings were prima facie and would not bind the learned Single Judge at the trial of the suit.