INTRODUCTION

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v. Alchem International Pvt. Ltd (CS(COMM) 1050/2018). underscores the judiciary’s vigilant approach in protecting well-established pharmaceutical trademarks. The Court examined whether Alchem International’s use of the mark “ALCHEM” infringed upon Alkem Laboratories' registered and long-used trademark“ALKEM.”
Justice Amit Bansal’s judgment meticulously analyzed doctrines of prior use, acquiescence, delay, and honest concurrent use—eventually granting an interim injunction to safeguard Alkem’s brand identity and prevent consumer confusion in the sensitive pharmaceutical domain.

THE CORE DISPUTE: 'ALKEM' VS. 'ALCHEM'

The legal battle centered on the two corporate and house marks, ‘ALKEM’ (Plaintiff) and ‘ALCHEM’ (Defendant).

• Plaintiff's Case (ALKEM Laboratories Ltd.): ALKEM, incorporated in 1973, is the prior adopter and user of the mark ‘ALKEM’. It is the registered proprietor of the trademark, with its earliest registration dating back to October 1, 1973. The company is a significant player in the pharmaceutical and nutraceutical industry, reporting a massive annual turnover of approximately Rs. 5,852.5 crores for products sold under the ‘ALKEM’ mark in the financial year 2016-2017. The suit was filed in 2018 after the plaintiff noticed the defendant expanding its business under the ‘ALCHEM’ trademark.
• Defendant's Case (ALCHEM International Pvt. Ltd.): ALCHEM, incorporated in 1982, claimed to have honestly and concurrently adopted its mark in the mid-1980s. The mark ‘ALCHEM’ was coined from ‘Alkaloids and Chemicals’. ALCHEM argued that it mainly dealt in Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) and bulk drugs, primarily for export, and initially was not a direct competitor of ALKEM’s retail products.

TABLE: ALKEM’S OPPOSITIONS TO ALCHEM’S TRADEMARK APPLICATIONS

To know more about this you can follow the link below:

THE COURT'S ANALYSIS AND KEY FINDINGS

In a recent case examined by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal, several pivotal issues were addressed, including trademark similarity, the defense of delay, and the overarching concern for public interest. The Court explicitly pointed out that there was "no dispute about the fact that the two marks are phonetically identical." This phonetic similarity is particularly significant within the pharmaceutical and allied industries, as it raises a strong likelihood of consumer confusion. Given the potential risks to consumers, the Court emphasized the importance of protecting distinct trademarks.

On the other side, the defendant mounted a defense centered on the notion of delay and acquiescence, arguing that ALKEM had waited more than a decade after issuing a cease-and-desist notice in 2005 to initiate legal proceedings in 2018. This prolonged inaction led the defendant to contend that such a delay amounted to undue acquiescence, undermining the validity of ALKEM's claims. This situation highlighted critical questions surrounding the timely enforcement of trademark rights and the implications it has for both businesses and consumers in safeguarding their interests.

THE DELHI HIGH COURT FIRMLY REJECTED THIS ARGUMENT, CITING ESTABLISHED LEGAL PRECEDENTS:

The Delhi High Court recently addressed an important legal principle concerning trademark rights. It firmly rejected the argument that silence equates to acquiescence, stating that for acquiescence to occur, there must be a "positive or overt act" of encouragement from the plaintiff. Simply remaining silent or inactive doesn’t mean forfeiting trademark rights. In this case, the plaintiff had actively opposed several trademark applications filed by ALCHEM, taking steps from 2010 to 2018, which the Court noted invalidated any plea of acquiescence. Once a plaintiff has issued a cease-and-desist notice or filed an opposition, the defendant cannot claim that acquiescence applies, as they are already on notice. Additionally, the Court highlighted the importance of public interest, citing the Supreme Court's stance that a mere delay in taking legal action is not enough to prevent the granting of an injunction in infringement cases. Protecting the public from being misled is paramount, underscoring the judicial commitment to uphold trademark rights.

THE INTERIM RELIEF GRANTED

On October 10, 2025, the Delhi High Court made a significant ruling in favor of the plaintiff, ALKEM, by granting an interim injunction. The court determined that the balance of convenience was clearly in ALKEM’s favor, mainly due to its established use and trademark registration. As a result, ALCHEM International Pvt. Ltd. is now prohibited from selling, manufacturing, or promoting any pharmaceutical products under the name ‘ALCHEM’ or any similar marks that could lead to confusion with ‘ALKEM’. However, there’s an important exception: the court acknowledged that the interim injunction wouldn’t apply to ALCHEM's use of the trademark for manufacturing and selling Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs), both domestically and internationally, as long as these sales are not for retail within India. This nuanced decision recognizes the complexities of the pharmaceutical industry while protecting established trademarks.

This final order provides substantial protection to ALKEM’s brand identity in the consumer-facing market while allowing ALCHEM to continue its established business in the B2B sector of bulk drugs/APIs. The judgment serves as a strong reminder to concurrent users that a prior user's continuous, active opposition will defeat a claim of acquiescence, especially when the consuming public's interest is at stake.

DECISION

The Court has issued an interim injunction that prevents Alchem International Pvt. Ltd., along with its directors, agents, and distributors, from engaging in activities like selling, manufacturing, advertising, or promoting any pharmaceutical or medicinal products under the trademark "ALCHEM" or any mark that closely resembles "ALKEM." However, there is a limited exception to this ruling: Alchem is allowed to continue using "ALCHEM" specifically for the manufacturing and exporting of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs), but they must refrain from retail sales within India.

CONCLUSION

The ruling in the Alkem v. Alchem case reinforces an important principle in the pharmaceutical industry: we simply can't overlook brand similarity, as it directly affects patient safety and consumer trust. Justice Amit Bansal’s decision strikes a nice balance between protecting commercial rights and prioritizing public welfare. It serves as a reminder that staying vigilant and consistent in intellectual property protection is essential for trademark law in India. Overall, this ruling is a positive step for ensuring that both businesses and consumers can thrive safely and confidently.