Introduction
This case study analyses the judgment delivered by the Delhi High Court in the matter of Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Ram Kumar M/S Dr. Kumars Pharmaceuticals. The petition was instituted under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking rectification by way of cancellation of the trademark "UNKIND" registered in Class 35. The judgment, delivered on August 22, 2025, by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia, provides significant insight into the proprietary rights associated with the KIND Family of Marks in the pharmaceutical sector and sets considerable precedent in the interpretation of prior use, family of marks doctrine, non-use, and the concept of confusion in trademark law.
Factual Background
Mankind Pharma Ltd., incorporated in 1991 and backed by its predecessor-in-interest’s adoption of "MANKIND" since 1986, is a prominent entity engaged in manufacturing and marketing medicinal, pharmaceutical, and veterinary preparations. The Petitioner claims a robust portfolio of over 300 trademarks, with "MANKIND" and the word "KIND" being integral elements—the so-called KIND Family of Marks. Notably, Petitioner holds registrations in all 45 classes and has established goodwill and reputation through its extensive usage of these marks, including "MANKIND".
Respondent No. 1, Ram Kumar M/S Dr. Kumars Pharmaceuticals, purportedly adopted the impugned trademark "UNKIND" on July 17, 2008, claiming usage since June 30, 2006. The Petitioner, upon learning of this registration, issued a Cease and Desist Notice which remained unanswered. The Petitioner further asserts that there are no goods evidenced to have been sold under the "UNKIND" mark by Respondent No. 1, raising grounds for rectification on the basis of non-use.
Procedural Background
The Rectification Petition was initially filed before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). After the abolition of IPAB and transfer of such matters to the High Courts pursuant to the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalization and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021, the present petition was listed before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia. Despite several attempts, Respondent No. 1 remained unserved; ultimately, service was effected through WhatsApp on November 19, 2024, as per the directions of the Court. However, Respondent No. 1 failed to appear and was proceeded ex parte. Respondent No. 2—Registrar of Trade Marks—was represented as a formal party, submitting that they would abide by the Court’s directions.
Core Dispute
The core question before the Court was whether the registration of the trademark "UNKIND" (Application No. 1711563, Class 35) in favour of Respondent No. 1 should be cancelled on grounds of prior use, confusing similarity, dishonesty, and non-use, considering the Petitioner’s claim of proprietary rights over its KIND Family of Marks. The dispute examined whether "UNKIND" is deceptively or confusingly similar to "MANKIND" and other marks in the KIND Family, whether the registration was bona fide, and whether Respondent No. 1 had ever used the mark in commerce.
Discussion on Judgments
Numerous judicial precedents were cited by the Petitioner, each providing different context:
-
Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2015 SCC OnLine Del 6914): Cited to substantiate the claim that "KIND" has no direct relation to pharmaceutical products and that Mankind Pharma, having established the first use of "KIND" in the pharmaceutical sector, is entitled to heightened protection. The judgment also contextualizes the distinctiveness of the mark and the associated goodwill.
-
Mankind Pharma v. Lemford Biotech Pvt. Ltd. and Registrar of Trade Marks (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:1232): This precedent affirms Petitioner’s status as the prior and recognized user of the KIND Family of Marks.
-
Mankind Pharma Ltd v. Arvind Kumar Trading and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:2700): Referred in context of prior use and the legal standing conferred to Mankind Pharma’s family of marks.
-
Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Manoj Kumar M/s Novakind Biosciences (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:7590): Contextually relevant to show judicial consistency in recognizing the Petitioner’s rights over KIND Family of Marks.
-
Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Gurinder Singh (C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 257/2022): Referred to establish repeat judicial recognition of rights over marks bearing the KIND suffix.
-
Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Dr. Kind Formulation Pvt. Ltd. and the Registrar of Trade Marks (C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 282/2022): Cited regarding the confusion likely to arise in the market from use of similar marks and extended protection to the KIND Family of Marks.
In all these references, the context was to establish the Petitioner as the prior adopter, significant proprietor, and exclusive user of ‘KIND’ marks, thus entitling it to heightened legal protection under trademark law.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
Justice Tejas Karia's analysis is noteworthy for its legal clarity and focus on established principles. The judgment begins by observing that in the absence of any defence or reply by Respondent No. 1, the pleadings made by the Petitioner remain uncontroverted, and for all practical purposes, stand admitted.
The Court notes the Petitioner’s substantial number of registrations for marks using "KIND" as a suffix and acknowledges the development of a Family of Marks, a concept protecting marks with common essential features. Relying on Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., the Judge observed that "KIND" has no generic or descriptive connection to pharmaceutical products, but through long-standing, exclusive use, the mark enjoys unique status and recognition in the public mind associated with the Petitioner.
Justice Karia finds clear evidence of prior use and registration, distinguishing the Petitioner’s mark as earlier in time and established in goodwill. On non-use, the Court finds that Respondent No. 1 did not offer evidence of use of the "UNKIND" mark since its registration—a precondition for maintaining registration under Section 47(1)(a) and (b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Furthermore, it is reasoned that “UNKIND” is confusingly similar and deceptively akin to "MANKIND" and other marks in the KIND Family—likely to cause confusion or deception in trade and among consumers. The adoption of the "UNKIND" mark by Respondent No. 1 is found to be without bonafides and was likely intended to capitalize on the Petitioner’s goodwill, reputation, and business presence.
The Judge notes particularly that distinguishing only the prefix while retaining the essential family characteristic "KIND" is insufficient to avoid confusion, and constitutes violation of the rights of the Petitioner under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act.
Final Decision
The Court allowed the petition for rectification, directing the Trade Marks Registry to remove "UNKIND" (Application No. 1711563, Class 35) from the Register of Trade Marks. Instructions were issued for compliance, with a copy to be sent to the Trade Marks Registry by the Registrar.
Law Settled in This Case
This case clarifies and reinforces several legal principles:
-
The doctrine of "Family of Marks" receives judicial reinforcement, particularly where an essential word or feature is accorded distinctiveness by the proprietor through substantial usage and market reputation, even if such word is not inherently distinctive vis-à-vis the product category.
-
Prior user and goodwill associated with a series of marks can be pivotal in claiming exclusive rights and opposing later registrations.
-
Registration without bona fide use coupled with a lack of evidence of commercial use is a ground for rectification under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
-
The adoption of deceptively or confusingly similar marks, particularly where the essential character of a prior registered mark is retained by a subsequent entrant, merits cancellation in the interest of preventing confusion and preserving the integrity of the Register.
Case Details
Case Title: Mankind Pharma Ltd. Vs. Ram Kumar
Date of Order: August 22, 2025
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 566/2022
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:7142
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
-
Protection of the "Family of Marks" Doctrine: A Delhi High Court Perspective
-
Cancellation of Confusingly Similar Trademarks: Analysis of Mankind Pharma Ltd v. Ram Kumar
-
Rectification for Non-Use and Prior Proprietary Rights: The Saga of 'KIND' Marks
-
Judicial Interpretation of Trademark Distinctiveness in Pharmaceuticals: Lessons from Mankind Pharma Case
-
Deceptive Similarity and Exclusive Rights in Trademark Law: Insights from Delhi High Court Judgment
