'A To Z' Is Generic For Multivitamins, Cannot Be Monopolised: Delhi High Court

In a judgment delivered on January 17, 2026, Justice Tejas Karia allowed Prevego's application seeking vacation of the injunction and dismissed Alkem's plea for interim relief in a suit alleging trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off. 

The court observed that, “the Mark 'A TO Z' describes the nature of the goods being provided by the Plaintiff as well as the Defendant. Hence, the Mark 'A TO Z' is descriptive in nature. Therefore, 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 dispute arose after Alkem alleged that Prevego's use of the mark “MULTIVEIN AZ” and its overall get-up infringed Alkem's “A TO Z,” “A TO Z-NS” marks and copied its packaging. Alkem relied on its use of the “A TO Z” marks since 1998, substantial sales figures and advertising expenditure to claim goodwill and reputation.

Prevego, however, asserted that “A TO Z” is a generic expression signifying completeness, that Alkem's registrations were device marks with a limited scope of protection and that its mark, when viewed as a whole, was visually, phonetically and conceptually distinct from that of Alkem's.

After examining the material on record, the Court held that “A TO Z,” when used for nutraceuticals and multivitamin supplements, describes the character of the goods and is therefore descriptive over which exclusivity cannot be claimed.

Applying the anti-dissection rule, the Court noted that the competing marks must be compared as a whole and not broken into individual components. It held that the prominent presence of the word “MULTIVEIN” in the disputed mark sufficiently distinguished it from Alkem's marks and that there was no likelihood of consumer confusion.

“The Plaintiff's Marks and the Impugned Mark if considered as a whole cannot be held to be deceptively similar and are able to be distinguished by the use of word 'Multivein'. The Plaintiff cannot claim exclusivity over the use of the letters 'A' and 'Z'. The rival Marks are not identical and / or deceptively similar, the Plaintiff's Marks and the Impugned Mark comprise of letters from the English language, which cannot be monopolized by any party....Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Marks, 'A TO Z' is descriptive and generic.” the Court said.

The Court also found that Alkem had failed to disclose material facts, including prior abandoned and opposed trademark applications for “A TO Z” mark. Such concealment, the Court held, disentitled Alkem from equitable relief at the interim stage.

Rejecting Alkem's copyright infringement claim, the Court clarified that copyright protection in a stylised logo cannot be extended to prevent the use of common letters of the alphabet and further found that the rival trade dresses were visually different.

Accordingly, the Court vacated the earlier interim injunction and allowed Prevego to continue using  'AZ' mark for its nutraceutical product.

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

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