‘No monopoly on alphabet’: Delhi High Court denies pharma giant Alkem protection for ‘A TO Z’ mark

The order added that the mark ‘A TO Z’ describes the nature of the goods being provided by the petitioner as well as the defendant, and in that view, the mark ‘A TO Z’ is descriptive in nature.

Findings

• It is clear that ‘A TO Z’ can represent completeness or comprehensiveness. As the petitioner’s products using the Plaintiff’s Marks pertain to nutraceuticals and multivitamins, it describes the goods as vitamins are commonly known by various alphabets.
• Therefore, multivitamin products can be described by ‘A TO Z’, encompassing several different types of vitamins.
• The use of letters of the English language cannot be monopolised by the petitioner, especially in light of the submission made by the petitioner before the trade marks registry in the opposition proceedings application, wherein the petitioner conceded that the device mark is stylised and that its protection is limited to its unique, intertwined, and conjoined manner.’
• Accordingly, the petitioner’s mark, ‘A TO Z’, is descriptive and generic.
• There is no doubt that the dominant part of the petitioner’s mark is the letters ‘A’ and ‘Z’, however, the petitioner’s marks must be seen as a whole, and the letters ‘A’ and ‘Z’ cannot be dissected and seen independently for granting protection.
• The petitioner’s marks are device marks consisting of stylised ‘A’ and ‘Z’ and a letter ‘to’ in between the two alphabets.
• It is tarite law that device marks, by their nature, protect the specific visual representation of the Mark.
• The Copyright Act entitles the proprietor of an artistic work to protection of its artistic work; however, it does not entitle the petitioner to monopolise the use of the letters ‘A’ and ‘Z’ in any manner whatsoever.
• Having considered the averments in the pleadings and the submissions made by the parties, the petitioner’s marks and the impugned mark are neither identical nor deceptively similar; the plaintiff does not have the exclusive right to use the letters ‘A’ and ‘Z’.

Background

• The litigation originated by Alkem Laboratories, which sought to restrain Prevego from using the mark “MULTIVEIN AZ” for pharmaceutical tablets.
• Alkem claimed that it had been using its “A TO Z” marks– including stylised logos and trade dress- since 1998 for its massively popular range of nutraceuticals, which recorded sales exceeding Rs 34 lakhs in the 2023-2024 fiscal year.
• Alkem argued that “A TO Z” was a “coined and arbitrary” mark that had acquired a secondary meaning as a source identifier for their products.
• The opposite party, Prevego Healthcare, argued that the phrase “A TO Z” is a generic expression denoting completeness and is descriptive of multivitamins, which are commonly known by various letters.
  They further contended that Alkem had concealed that its application for the “A TO Z” device mark in Class 5 (pharmaceuticals) had been under opposition since 2007.