The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Mankind Pharma Limited, a leading pharmaceutical company in India, to protect its well-established “Kind” family of marks. The court’s decision was made in response to the defendant’s use of deceptively similar marks, such as “DICKIND”, “LONOKIND”, “FENKIND”, and “CHIMOKIND”, in relation to pharmaceutical products. The plaintiff argued that Mankind Pharma has been using its “Kind” family of trademarks since 1995, establishing extensive goodwill, reputation, and consumer trust in the pharmaceutical industry.
The court observed that the similarity between the plaintiff’s and defendant’s marks created a case of “triple identity”, where the marks were identical, the product category was the same, and the trade channels and consumer base overlapped. The court held that the defendant’s conduct was prima facie dishonest, aimed at riding on the reputation of Mankind Pharma, and granted interim relief till the next hearing scheduled for January 28, 2026.
The plaintiff had argued that the use of identical or deceptively similar marks by the defendant amounts to infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and also constitutes passing off, as it is likely to deceive consumers and erode trust in the plaintiff’s products. The company stressed that the defendant’s use of marks such as “DICKIND”, “LONOKIND”, “FENKIND”, and “CHIMOKIND” is not only visually and phonetically similar to its established marks but also creates a likelihood of confusion, especially since both parties operate in the same product category and target the same consumer base.
The court applied the “triple identity” test and held that the defendant’s adoption of the impugned marks was prima facie dishonest, amounting to an attempt to ride on the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff. The court emphasized that the pharmaceutical sector requires heightened scrutiny because of the serious implications of confusion in drug names. The court restrained the defendants from using the impugned marks till the next date of hearing, January 28, 2026, and noted that the balance of convenience lay in favor of the plaintiff, as denial of relief would cause irreparable harm to its goodwill and reputation.
The defendant was not represented during the hearing, but it is likely that they could have argued that the marks adopted by them were distinct, descriptive, or coined independently without an intent to infringe upon the plaintiff’s trademarks. They may have also argued that the plaintiff cannot claim exclusivity over the suffix “Kind”, as it is used by several players in the pharmaceutical industry. However, the court’s decision suggests that the plaintiff’s “Kind” family of marks is entitled to a higher level of protection, given its long and continuous use and the reputation it enjoys in the pharmaceutical sector.
The ruling is significant as it highlights the importance of protecting intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical industry, where confusion in drug names can have serious consequences for patients. The court’s decision is also a testament to the strength of Mankind Pharma’s “Kind” family of marks, which has been established over three decades of consistent use and has become a well-recognized brand in the pharmaceutical industry.