Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Amit Bansal restrained Alchem International Pvt. Ltd., incorporated in 1982, from infringing the trademark of Alkem Laboratories Ltd., a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical and nutraceutical products. The Court held that Alkem, the prior adopter and registered proprietor of the mark “ALKEM,” had not acquiesced in the defendant’s use of the deceptively similar mark “ALCHEM.” Justice Bansal observed that Alkem could not be said to have slept over its rights, noting that Alchem had initially dealt only in bulk drugs and became a competitor only in 2018, when its business expansion posed a likelihood of confusion among consumers

Alkem Laboratories Ltd., a pharmaceutical company incorporated in 1973, sued Alchem International Pvt. Ltd., incorporated in 1982, for permanent injunction restraining infringement of the registered mark “ALKEM”, passing off, and allied reliefs. Alongside the suit, Alkem sought an ex parte ad interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. On 30 October 2018, the Court directed status quo with respect to the number of Alchem’s products then in the market.

Also Read: Supreme Court Orders CBI Investigation Into Karur Stampede; Retired Supreme Court Judge To Oversee Probe

Alkem later filed a further application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 on 27 October 2021, asserting that after the 2018 order Alchem altered its trade dress, gave greater prominence to “ALCHEM/ALCHEMLIFE,” and expanded its presence on e‑commerce platforms and advertisements, including online and radio. Alchem responded with an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 on 25 November 2021 seeking vacation of the 2018 order. The parties attempted mediation in May 2022; proceedings did not fructify. The applications were heard on 14 January, 19 February, 7 April, 14 May, and 11 July 2025, when judgment was reserved.

In the plaint, Alkem pleaded prior adoption and continuous use of “ALKEM” since 1973 across medicinal and nutraceutical products, supported by balance‑sheets, sales figures (1973–2016‑17), and a CA certificate. It relied on multiple registrations for “ALKEM,” the earliest dated 1 October 1973 in Class 5. Alkem stated it issued a cease‑and‑desist notice to Alchem on 15 December 2005 and filed oppositions in 2010, 2011, 2017, and 2018 to Alchem’s trademark applications. It alleged that Alchem had historically exported APIs and bulk drugs and only began retailing in India after 2006, and that Alchem’s recent branding changes and marketing led to confusion.

Alchem’s written statement asserted honest and concurrent user since 1985, contending its mark derives from “alkaloids and chemicals,” that the plaintiff’s early registrations were on a “proposed to be used” basis, and that “ALKEM” lacked reputation in 1982. It invoked a 1990 Bombay High Court decision in another dispute involving “Alchem,” asserted delay and acquiescence, and submitted that “ALCHEM” appeared only as a small source identifier while consumers relied on product/generic names. Alchem also argued that the interim status‑quo order addressed the number of products, not promotion/advertising.

The Court recorded that the competing marks are indistinguishably similar: “There can be no dispute about the fact that the two marks are phonetically identical and this fact has not even been disputed by the counsel during the course of arguments.” It noted Alkem’s prior adoption and registration: “The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the mark ‘ALKEM’ … the prior user, and prior adoptor of the mark ‘ALKEM’ for medicinal and pharmaceutical products.” The Court further recorded that “the defendant started using the mark in 1985 … [and] began retail sales in India only in the year 2006,” and that Alchem’s use “in respect of similar products in India cannot be stated to be honest and bona fide.”

On acquiescence and delay, the Bench set out settled principles. Citing authorities, it stated that mere silence does not amount to acquiescence and that delay alone does not bar injunctive relief in trademark disputes, particularly given public interest. The Court summarized: “In order to constitute acquiescence, there has to be a positive/overt act on behalf of the plaintiff. Mere silence on behalf of the plaintiff cannot amount to acquiescence.”

It also stated: “Mere delay or laches in filing a suit cannot be the ground for refusing interim injunction as this would be opposed to [the] interest of general public.” It recorded that once a cease‑and‑desist notice or opposition/rectification is filed, “it cannot be said that there is any acquiescence.” It further noted that where a party knowingly adopts the plaintiff’s mark, it “cannot take the defence of acquiescence,” and that to avoid confusion there must be “only one mark, one source and one proprietor” for similar goods.

Addressing factual chronology, the Court recorded evidence of the first Indian retail invoice dated 26 July 2006 and the exchange following Alkem’s 15 December 2005 legal notice (with Alchem’s reply of 10 January 2006). The Court observed that Alkem had also filed oppositions to Alchem’s applications and that Alchem’s expansion in 2017–2018—reflected in new product launches and heightened promotional spends—prompted the 2018 suit. It noted: “When the defendant started expanding its business and launching new products in 2017 and 2018, the plaintiff was compelled to file the present suit.”

On similarity of products and trade channels, the Court found they overlap: “both the plaintiff and the defendant are dealing with medicinal and pharmaceutical products … [including] health supplements, vitamins and multi‑minerals and nutraceutical products,” and “both … are sold through chemists and e‑pharmacies,” with medicines addressing similar ailments. The plea that “ALCHEM” appears merely as a source identifier was rejected with reference to materials showing the impugned mark used prominently in packaging and standalone advertisements, including online videos and media ads. The Court stated that such use would attract Section 29(5) and (6) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, because the use on packaging and in advertising is likely to cause confusion among consumers of average intelligence.

The Court assessed balance of convenience and irreparable injury: “Balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff … Irreparable harm and injury would be caused not only to the plaintiff but also to the public at large, if the defendant is permitted to use the said mark, in respect of similar goods … likely to cause confusion and deception.” It recorded that a stricter approach applies in pharmaceutical cases when assessing the likelihood of confusion.

Also Read: Delhi High Court: Marriage Cannot Be Declared Invalid for Non-Performance of Ceremonies Under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act

The Court ordered that the defendant, “its directors, executives, partners or proprietors, as the case may be, their officers, servants and agents or any other persons acting for and on their behalf are restrained from selling, manufacturing, offering for sale, advertising, promoting, marketing or in any manner dealing in any pharmaceutical or medicinal product, under the trademark ‘ALCHEM’ or any other deceptively similar mark to the plaintiff’s mark ‘ALKEM’.”

“The plaintiff would have no objection if the defendant use the mark ‘ALCHEM’ in respect of APIs for sale in India and abroad,” and, accordingly, “it is made clear that the interim injunction would not apply in respect of the defendant using the impugned mark ‘ALCHEM’ in respect of manufacture and sale of APIs in India and overseas, provided the same is not used for retail sales in India.”

“Any observations made herein are only for the purpose of adjudication of the aforesaid applications and would have no bearing on the final outcome of the suit.” The matter was directed to be listed before the Roster Bench on 3 December 2025 for further proceedings in the suit.

Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Plaintiff: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate; Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate; with Mr. Sagar Chandra, Ms. Ishani Chandra, Ms. Srijan Uppal, Ms. Mehek Dua, Ms. K. Natasha, Ms. Aparna Tripathy, Mr. Subhadeep Das, Ms. Naman and Ms. Shreya, Advocates.

For the Defendant: Mr. Raj Shekhar Rao, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sonam Gupta, Mr. Saumay Kapoor, Mr. Shiva Pande, Ms. Meherunissa Jaitley, Ms. Ritvika Poswal and Mr. Sandeep Malik, Advocates.

Case Title: Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v. Alchem International Pvt. Ltd.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:8992
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1050/2018 (with I.A. 10101/2018, I.A. 3639/2020, I.A. 14222/2021, I.A. 14475/2021 & I.A. 15514/2021)
Bench: Justice Amit Bansal