Delhi High Court Upholds Injunction Against 'Noviets' Pharma In Trademark Dispute With Novartis
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Noviets Pharma against an interim order restraining it from using the mark 'NOVIETS'. The bench agreed prima facie that the mark was deceptively similar to Novartis AG's registered 'NOVARTIS' trademark.
A division bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora upheld the February 28, 2026 order passed by the single judge. The order had granted a temporary injunction against the appellants and restrained them from using 'NOVIETS'.
Novartis had sued Noviets Pharma, which deals in pharmaceutical and veterinary products, alleging that the mark 'NOVIETS' infringed its registered trademark 'NOVARTIS' and amounted to passing off.
It claimed continuous use of its mark since 1996, with registrations across multiple classes and a presence in India dating back to 1947 through its predecessor.
It had also challenged the single judge's order on the ground that the marks, when compared as a whole, were visually, phonetically and structurally dissimilar.
The court observed that Novartis had been able to demonstrate substantial goodwill and reputation through use since 1996 and sustained sales figures and agreed that pharmaceutical marks warrant "greater caution" since "confusion between medicines can have serious or even life-threatening consequences."
The bench also endorsed the single judge's finding of triple identity in the case, involving similar marks, an identical product category, and identical or similar trade channels.
It held that the appellants had "failed to provide a plausible explanation for how they arrived at the mark 'Noviets'," and that the adoption "appears" to have been "dishonest" and "an attempt to benefit from the goodwill possessed by" Novartis.
It also declined to interfere with the single judge's prima facie finding on territorial jurisdiction, noting that the appellants' listing on IndiaMART showed Delhi as their place of business and that whether the listing was merely passive or sufficiently interactive to attract jurisdiction was a mixed question of fact and law to be decided at trial.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed, with the court clarifying that its findings were prima facie in nature and would not bind the outcome of the trial pending before the single judge.
For Noviets: Advocates Davesh Vashishtha, Himanshu Khulbe and Ashish
For Novartis: Advocates Hemant Singh, Mamta Rani Jha, Pragya Jain, Anjeeta Rani and Diksha