The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the English alphabet is not private property. Refusing to grant interim protection to the mark “A TO Z,” the Court held that such a phrase is descriptive and cannot be locked up under trademark law by a single company.
The dispute arose after Alkem Laboratories sought to restrain another pharmaceutical company from using “AZ” in the branding of its multivitamin product. Alkem argued that its long-standing “A to Z” and “A to Z-NS” brands were being infringed, claiming exclusive rights over the expression and alleging passing off as well as copyright violation in the overall look of the product.
Justice Tejas Karia was not persuaded. The Court noted that “A to Z” is a commonly used expression that conveys completeness or all-round coverage. Because of this descriptive character, the phrase lacks the distinctiveness required for exclusivity. In firm terms, the Court observed that a party cannot monopolise ordinary English letters or expressions by invoking trademark protection.
On the competing marks, the Court emphasised that trademarks must be judged as a whole, not dissected piece by piece. In the defendant’s product name, the word “Multivein” was found to be the dominant element, substantially changing the visual and conceptual impression of the mark. This, the Court said, reduced any realistic chance of confusion among consumers.
Another factor weighed against Alkem as well. The Court took note of the company’s failure to disclose earlier trademark applications for “A to Z” in the relevant pharmaceutical category that had either been withdrawn, abandoned, or faced opposition. Such omissions, the Court held, undermined its claim for equitable relief.
The copyright argument did not fare any better. The Court rejected the contention that the rival product’s branding amounted to copyright infringement.
As a result, the earlier interim injunction granted in Alkem’s favour was lifted, clearing the way for the competing product to continue being sold under its existing name.
The ruling reinforces a basic principle of trademark law: while brands can protect what is truly distinctive, everyday language—especially something as fundamental as the alphabet—remains free for all to use.
