Deceptive similarity in pharmaceutical marks requires a stricter consistency test to prevent public health risks.

The Plaintiffs, part of the Novartis Group, are global leaders in healthcare and have used the registered trademark ‘NOVARTIS’ and its associated logo in India since 1996.

In January 2024, the Plaintiffs discovered the Defendants, based in Bihar, selling pharmaceutical and veterinary products under the marks ‘NOVIETS’ and a logo deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ house mark on IndiaMart.

Despite legal notices and the abandonment of a trademark application by Defendant No. 3, the Defendants continued using the impugned marks, asserting they were distinct and registered.

The Plaintiffs filed for an interim injunction alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and dilution.

The Court applied Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 regarding infringement, and Section 124(5), which empowers courts to grant interim injunctions even against registered marks if they violate prior proprietary rights.

It relied on the "Triple Identity Test" (similarity of marks, goods, and trade channels).

It relied on the "Initial Interest Confusion" doctrine.

Key precedents included Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001) for the stricter standard of deceptive similarity in medicinal products.

Key precedents included IPRS v. Sanjay Dalia (2015) regarding territorial jurisdiction and the "dynamic effect" of interactive websites.

The Court first addressed jurisdiction, holding that the Defendants’ presence on IndiaMart, specifically listing "Delhi" in the "Contact Us" section, created a "looming presence" that satisfied the prima facie requirement for jurisdiction at the demurrer stage.

On the merits, the Court found the marks "NOVIETS" and "NOVARTIS" to be phonetically and visually similar, noting that the Defendants merely substituted "AR" with "IE".

Applying the "Dominant Feature Test," the Court identified the prefix "NOV" as the key identifier, rejecting the Defendants' "common to trade" argument because they had themselves sought registration for the mark.

Given the life-threatening risks associated with medicinal confusion, the Court held that the "Triple Identity" of the marks, products, and consumers necessitated a stricter approach to prevent public harm.

It held that the Plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case of prior use and reputation, and that the balance of convenience favored protecting public health from potential medicinal confusion.

The Defendants and their associates are restrained from using ‘NOVIETS’, the impugned logo, or any deceptively similar mark as a trademark or trade name for pharmaceutical or veterinary products until the final disposal of the suit.