Registration for logo does not grant automatic protection over underlying words. Simpliciter English letters are inherently descriptive and not entitled to protection: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has handed down an important decision in Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v. Prevego Healthcare & Research Pvt. Ltd., observing that device marks cannot automatically grant protection over the word or letters comprised therein, unless shown to have acquired secondary meaning. The court held that a registration for a device of the mark ‘A TO Z’ will not offer protection against use of the marks “A TO Z” or “AZ”, since these would be inherently descriptive.

The plaintiff claimed that it had adopted and was continuously using its ‘A TO Z’ formative marks in the form of a logo since the year 1998 in respect of pharmaceuticals and nutraceutical products. The plaintiff also owned a couple of registrations for variants of the ‘A TO Z’ device mark (filed in 2007 claiming use since 1998) and for the word mark ‘A TO Z - NS’ (filed in 2008 on proposed to be used basis), in Classes 29 and 30. The plaintiff also asserted copyright in the artistic work of its ‘A TO Z’ device marks.

The defendant, on the other hand, was using the mark MULTIVEIN AZ in the form of a logo in respect of health supplements since 2020. The defendant contended that the plaintiff’s ‘A TO Z’ device marks conferred exclusivity only in respect of the specific visual representation of the word/letters and not over the underlying letters standalone. The defendant further asserted that term ‘A TO Z’ is a common/generic expression that can signify completeness or range of products to average consumers. The defendant also argued that the marks were different on account of difference in the artistic elements, colour combinations, trade dress, etc.

The court dismissed plaintiff’s objections and observed that use of the mark ‘A TO Z’ in relation to multivitamins is likely to indicate that the product consists of different vitamins, such as Vitamin A, B, C, etc., thereby making it descriptive. The court also observed that though ‘A’ and ‘Z’ were the dominant features of the plaintiff’s device mark registrations, the letters ‘A’ and ‘Z’ cannot, of themselves, confer any exclusivity, as this would be violative of the anti-dissection principle. Moreover, the court also found the rival device marks to be different on account of additional figurative elements, difference in the colour scheme, etc. The court also took exception to the Plaintiff concealing that, while defending an opposition by a third-party against one of its applications for the ‘A TO Z’ device marks, the plaintiff had conceded that the mark confers protection only to the device of ‘A TO Z’ as a whole and not specifically to the words.

Thus, the Court vacated the interim injunction granted earlier to the Plaintiff and ruled that the Defendant’s MULTIVEIN AZ device mark did not amount to infringement or passing off in relation to the Plaintiff’s ‘A TO Z’ marks.

Alkem Laboratories Limited v. Prevego Healthcare and Research Pvt. Ltd. [CS(COMM) 84/2025

Read the judgement copy here.