Introduction
This case study examines the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Mankind Pharma Limited v. Registrar of Trade Marks, delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia on August 22, 2025. The appeal was filed by Mankind Pharma Limited challenging an order of the Trade Marks Examiner that refused registration of the trademark "PETKIND" in Class 5. The central issue revolved around whether the refusal under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 was justified in light of Mankind Pharma's extensive use and ownership of the KIND Family of Marks and the existence of a prior filed application for the mark "PETKIND PHARMA."
Factual Background
Mankind Pharma Limited is a major pharmaceutical company in India, marketing an extensive range of medicinal, pharmaceutical, and veterinary preparations under various well-known trademarks. On October 1, 2021, the Appellant applied for registration of the mark "PETKIND" under Application No. 5157441 for medicinal, pharmaceutical, veterinary preparations, including dietary supplements. The Trade Marks Registry raised objections under Section 11(1), noting a prior application for a similar mark: "PETKIND PHARMA" (Application No. 4794368) by Wellford Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. for similar goods in the same class. It was contended that registration of "PETKIND" would result in public confusion given the phonetic and visual similarity of the marks.
Procedural Background
The Examining report dated November 5, 2021, set forth objections to registration of "PETKIND" under Section 11 of the Act due to the existence of the similar "PETKIND PHARMA" application by Wellford Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. The Appellant was afforded an opportunity to respond and a hearing was scheduled for March 11, 2024. The case was reviewed by the Examiner of Trade Marks, who refused the registration on March 15, 2024, holding that "PETKIND" was not registrable in light of the existing similar mark in the same class, applying Section 11(1). Aggrieved, Mankind Pharma Limited appealed to the Delhi High Court, challenging the refusal as arbitrary and contrary to trademark registration principles.
Core Dispute
The main dispute centered on whether the refusal to register "PETKIND" by the Trade Mark Examiner was legally sustainable under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The parties debated whether the similarity between "PETKIND" and "PETKIND PHARMA" for similar goods in Class 5 was likely to cause confusion, and whether Mankind Pharma’s extensive use and ownership of KIND Family of Marks should grant it prior proprietorship and distinctive association in the relevant market.
Discussion on Judgments
The Appellant invoked several judgments to support its assertion of prior use and proprietary rights:
Mankind Pharma v. Lemford Biotech Pvt. Ltd. and Registrar of Trade Marks, Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:1232, Mankind Pharma Ltd v. Arvind Kumar Trading and Anr., Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:2700, Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Manoj Kumar M/s Novakind Biosciences, Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:7590, Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Gurinder Singh, C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 257/2022, and Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Dr. Kind Formulation Pvt. Ltd. and Registrar of Trade Marks, C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 282/2022.
All judgments above were cited to demonstrate that Mankind Pharma is the prior, recognised, and exclusive user of the KIND Family of Marks in the pharmaceutical field, that the public associates the suffix "KIND" with Mankind Pharma’s products, and that the doctrine of family of marks extends heightened protection against confusingly similar subsequent marks within the same sector.
Further, the Court referenced Manu Garg & Ratan Behari Agrawal v. Registrar of Trade Marks, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 581, which clarifies the proper construction of Section 11(1): mere existence of similar marks within the same class is not sufficient for refusal; there must be actual likelihood of confusion among the public resulting from the similarity of the marks and the goods/services to which they pertain.
The main judgment providing doctrinal context was Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 6914, in which it was held that the word "KIND" bears no direct relation to pharmaceutical products, but through extensive and uninterrupted usage by Mankind Pharma, it has earned distinctiveness and heightened protection in law.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
Justice Tejas Karia began by analyzing Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which serves as grounds for refusing registration based on relative similarity to existing or pending trademarks. The Court clarified that Section 11(1) does not categorically bar registration upon mere similarity between marks; rather, it requires that such similarity create a likelihood of public confusion or association with the prior mark.
The Judge observed that Mankind Pharma had demonstrated extensive use of KIND-based marks since 1986, boasting over 210 registered KIND marks in Class 5 alone. It was found that the KIND Family of Marks has acquired distinctiveness, and through consistent judicial recognition, the public at large, particularly in the trade of pharmaceuticals and veterinary products, associates the KIND suffix exclusively with Mankind Pharma.
While the Cited Mark, “PETKIND PHARMA,” was flagged as a proposed-to-be-used mark without evidence of actual market presence, the Appellant had documented substantial turnover and market usage under various KIND marks, thereby asserting prior right and goodwill.
The Judge distinguished the requirement for public confusion, emphasizing that the likelihood of confusion must be established through the facts and circumstances, not presumed based on mere existence of similar marks in the same class. The Judgment found no active use of the Cited Mark and acknowledged Mankind Pharma’s market dominance and associative strength in KIND-marked products.
Accordingly, the Court held that the refusal of registration was unwarranted and arbitrary, given Mankind Pharma’s established brand equity and rights. The Judge directed that the matter proceed to advertisement, subject to resolution of any subsequent filed opposition under due legal process.
Final Decision
The Delhi High Court, on August 22, 2025, set aside the Impugned Order that refused registration of "PETKIND." The Court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to proceed with the advertisement of "PETKIND" within two months, in accordance with the Act. The Judgment further clarified that any opposition proceedings lodged against "PETKIND" would be considered independently and uninfluenced by the present order.
Law Settled in This Case
The Judgment reinforces interpretation of Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, holding that refusal of registration on grounds of similarity is not automatic and must be supported by evidence of likely confusion among the public. The doctrine of “Family of Marks” receives further reinforcement; where a party has established distinctiveness and broad market association with a shared word or suffix, such as "KIND," prior user rights are paramount. Also, proposed-to-be-used marks must demonstrate actual use or intent for use before serving as a valid ground for refusal against established marks with overwhelming market presence.
Case Details
Case Title: Mankind Pharma Limited v. Registrar of Trade Marks
Date of Order: August 22, 2025
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 54/2024
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:7141
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Suggested Titles for Publication in Law Journal
Family of Marks and Trademark Registration: Delhi High Court’s Perspective
Prior User Rights and the Limits of Section 11 Refusal under the Trade Marks Act
KIND Dominance Reaffirmed: Judicial Analysis of Mankind Pharma Limited v. Registrar of Trade Marks
Distinction, Confusion, and the Trademark Register: New Directions in Trademark Law
Trademark Registration and Market Goodwill: Revisiting Section 11 through the PETKIND Case
