Kiran Raj

The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark ‘NOVITAS’ in a trademark infringement suit filed by Novartis AG and its affiliate. The court held that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case for infringement, passing off, and dilution of their well-known trademark ‘NOVARTIS.’ The order directs the defendants and their associates to refrain from using the impugned mark until the next hearing.

The suit, filed under CS(COMM) 97/2025, involves a dispute between Novartis AG and Novartis Healthcare Private Limited (plaintiffs) against Novitas Lifesciences and another party (defendants). The plaintiffs claim that the defendants adopted the mark ‘NOVITAS’ in their trade name and domain name ‘www.novitaslifesciences.com,’ which is deceptively similar to the registered and well-known trademark ‘NOVARTIS.’

The plaintiffs contend that ‘NOVARTIS’ has been in use since 1996 and enjoys statutory and common law rights in over 100 jurisdictions, including India. They argued that the similarity between ‘NOVARTIS’ and ‘NOVITAS’ is likely to cause confusion among consumers, especially in the pharmaceutical sector.

The suit seeks a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from using the mark ‘NOVITAS,’ along with claims for damages, rendition of accounts, and delivery of infringing materials.

Justice Mini Pushkarna recorded that despite being served, the defendants did not appear before the court. The court took note of the affidavit and proof of service submitted by the plaintiffs and proceeded with the case in their absence.

Regarding the trademark dispute, the court observed: "The plaintiffs have demonstrated a prima facie case for grant of injunction, and in case no ex-parte ad-interim injunction is granted, the plaintiffs will suffer an irreparable loss. Further, the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants."

The court noted that the defendants’ mark ‘NOVITAS’ closely resembles ‘NOVARTIS,’ both visually and phonetically. Given that both parties operate in the pharmaceutical sector, the court acknowledged the likelihood of confusion among consumers.

"The competing marks NOVARTIS and NOVITAS are almost visually and phonetically identical to each other. India being a multilingual country with varied accents accorded to each region, confusion and deception amongst the members of public may arise on account of close phonetic identity."

The court also took note of the plaintiffs’ argument that the defendants had merely rearranged letters in the ‘NOVARTIS’ mark to form ‘NOVITAS’ and found this assertion to indicate mala fide intent.

Further, the court recorded that Novartis’ trademark has been declared a well-known trademark by the Indian Trade Marks Registry and is included in the list of well-known trademarks maintained by the Registrar of Trade Marks.

The Delhi High Court issued the following interim orders:

1. "Till the next date of hearing, defendants, its directors, assignees in business, its associates, affiliates, franchisees, licensees, distributors, dealers, stockists, retailers, and agents are restrained from selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations under the impugned mark NOVITAS or any other trade mark/trade name as may be phonetically, visually and structurally deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ trade mark(s) NOVARTIS, amounting to infringement of registered trade mark, passing off, dilution, and unfair competition."

2. The court clarified that the defendants may continue their business under any other mark that is not identical or deceptively similar to ‘NOVARTIS.’

3. The defendants were directed to file a reply within four weeks of service. The plaintiffs may file a rejoinder within two weeks thereafter.

4. Compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC was directed to be completed within one week.

5. The matter has been next scheduled for the hearing on July 14, 2025.

Case Title: Novartis AG & Anr. v. Novitas Lifesciences & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 97/2025
Bench: Justice Mini Pushkarna

[Read/Download order]