In a significant ruling rendered on 2nd April 2025, the Delhi High Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee, delivered judgment in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 279/2022, titled Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Preet Kamal Grewal and Anr., resolving a long-standing trademark dispute under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The case concerns the petitioner Mankind Pharma Ltd.'s effort to protect the sanctity and exclusivity of its well-known “MANKIND” and “KIND” family of trademarks, specifically challenging the registration of the mark “KINDPAN” held by the first respondent, Preet Kamal Grewal.
Mankind Pharma Ltd., a leading pharmaceutical company, had filed the present petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, seeking the removal of the impugned mark “KINDPAN” (Trademark Application No. 2795896 in Class 5) registered in the name of respondent no. 1. The petitioner asserted long-standing, continuous, and exclusive use of its “MANKIND” mark since 1986, dating back to its predecessor-in-interest. The petitioner also substantiated its case with documentary evidence including numerous trademark registrations containing the suffix “KIND,” extensive turnover and prescription data, and prior legal proceedings undertaken to defend its rights.
Mankind Pharma's trademark “MANKIND” is registered across all 45 classes of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and it holds more than 300 trademarks featuring the suffix “KIND.” These include brands such as “NUEKIND,” “CANDIKIND,” “ADDKIND,” and others. The mark “MANKIND” has been officially recognised as a “well-known trademark” as per Section 2(1)(zg) of the Act in Journal No. 1978 dated 14.12.2020. Relying on audited financial records, the petitioner submitted that its “KIND” brands alone had crossed Rs. 1300 Crores in turnover for the year 2018, and the total turnover of the company had risen to over Rs. 4794 Crores by the financial year 2019-20.
Respondent no. 1, a Ludhiana-based proprietorship concern under the name “Sanavita Medicare,” had applied for the trademark “KINDPAN” on a “proposed to be used” basis in 2014, well after the petitioner had secured registration of the mark “KIND” (Registration No. 2457970 dated 10.01.2013 in Class 5). The mark was allowed registration by the Trademark Registry despite the prior registration of an identical mark in the same class by Mankind Pharma. This prompted the petitioner to file the present rectification petition initially before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), which stood transferred to the Delhi High Court post the dissolution of the IPAB.
The first respondent did not appear in the matter and was proceeded ex-parte by the Court via its order dated 11.12.2023. Respondent no. 2, the Trademark Registry, although represented through counsel, failed to file a reply. Consequently, all unrebutted averments of the petitioner were deemed admitted.
The petitioner’s case was built around the doctrine of a “family of marks.” It was argued that the suffix “KIND” had acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning owing to long-standing, uninterrupted, and widespread use in connection with its pharmaceutical products. Counsel for Mankind relied on several precedents including:
-
Mankind Pharma Limited v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 6914, where the petitioner’s use of “KIND” family marks was recognised as arbitrary and fanciful, meriting strong protection.
-
Caterpillar Inc. v. Mehtab Ahmed & Ors., 2002 SCC OnLine Del 865 and Bata India Ltd. v. Chawla Boot House, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8147, which affirmed the proprietary nature of distinctive trademark elements.
-
Kirorimal Kashiram Marketing and Agencies Pvt. Ltd. v. Shree Sita Chawal Udyog, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2933, where long and exclusive use gave rise to inherent distinctiveness.
-
Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Arvind Kumar Trading, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2265, wherein the court observed that even marginal alterations to “KIND” suffix marks could lead to consumer confusion due to the strength of the family of marks.
-
Mankind Pharma Limited v. Novakind Bio Sciences Pvt. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4806, holding “NOVAKIND” deceptively similar to “MANKIND.”
The petitioner also cited Shree Vardhman Rice and General Mills v. Amar Singh Chawalwala, (2009) 10 SCC 257, and Amar Singh Chawal Wala v. Shree Vardhman Rice and Genl. Mills, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1690, for reinforcing the principle that even partial copying of dominant elements of a well-known mark is not permissible.
In analysing the matter, the Court reaffirmed that the suffix “KIND” in the pharmaceutical sector was neither descriptive nor generic. It was rather a distinctive and fanciful component that had come to be associated exclusively with the petitioner due to longstanding use and aggressive brand protection. The Court further observed that the conduct of the respondent no. 1 in applying for a similar mark in the same class, despite knowledge of the petitioner’s pre-existing mark, demonstrated mala fides and a clear intent to capitalise on the reputation and goodwill of the petitioner.
Significantly, the Court endorsed the petitioner’s reliance on McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition (Thomson West, 2006), which asserts that infringement may arise not only from exact copying but also from use that confuses the public by creating an impression of association with a well-known family of marks.
The Court held that the registration of “KINDPAN” violated Sections 11(1) and 11(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which prohibit registration of marks that are confusingly similar to earlier marks and likely to cause dilution of their distinctiveness. It was also held that the petitioner qualifies as a “person aggrieved” under Section 57(2) of the Act, thereby entitling it to seek rectification.
Accordingly, the Delhi High Court allowed the petition, directing the Trademark Registry to remove the impugned mark “KINDPAN” (Registration No. 2795896) from the Register of Trademarks.
Conclusion: This judgment significantly reinforces the strength of trademark protection accorded to families of marks, particularly in specialised and sensitive sectors such as pharmaceuticals. The Court’s detailed recognition of secondary meaning, established goodwill, and the importance of source identification underscores a growing judicial inclination toward safeguarding brand integrity. The ruling reiterates the principle that deceptively similar marks, even when only partially overlapping, can lead to confusion and dilution, especially when they attempt to capitalise on established commercial reputation.
-
Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 6914
-
Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Arvind Kumar Trading, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2265
-
Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Novakind Bio Sciences Pvt. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4806
-
Caterpillar Inc. v. Mehtab Ahmed, 2002 SCC OnLine Del 865
-
Bata India Ltd. v. Chawla Boot House, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8147
-
Kirorimal Kashiram Marketing v. Shree Sita Chawal Udyog, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2933
-
Shree Vardhman Rice and General Mills v. Amar Singh Chawalwala, (2009) 10 SCC 257
-
Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Themis Medicare Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 1087
