Delhi High Court: In a trade mark infringement suit instituted by Mankind Consumer Products (P) Ltd., a Single Judge Bench of Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising or otherwise dealing in pharmaceutical or medicinal preparations, skin care preparations, or allied and cognate goods under the marks “ACNE SCAR”, “ACNE + SCAR”, “ACNESCAR”, or any other mark deceptively similar to the registered trade mark “ACNESTAR”. Holding that the rival marks were phonetically nearly indistinguishable and that the possibility of confusion among consumers or chemists could not be ruled out, the Court found a prima facie case of infringement and directed Defendant 2 to recall existing stock and withdraw online listings within 2 months.
Background
The present suit was instituted by Mankind Consumer Products (P) Ltd. (Mankind), seeking an interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and
Analysis
The Delhi High Court held that Mankind had made out a prima facie case of infringement of its registered trade mark ACNESTAR and allowed the application for interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
The Court rejected Defendant 2’s objection that Mankind had suppressed material facts regarding the date of commencement of use of the impugned mark. It observed that not every inaccuracy in pleadings would disentitle a party to discretionary relief and that the discrepancy regarding the date of commencement of marketing (pleaded as May 2025, whereas Defendant 2’s documents indicated sales from August 2022) was no more than an inadvertent error, as Mankind itself had filed the listing carrying a May 2024 review. The Court further held that Mankind was prima facie entitled to maintain the action by virtue of the deed of assignment, and that the subsisting registration of ACNESTAR constituted prima facie evidence of its validity.
On the question of deceptive similarity, the Court observed that ACNESTAR and ACNE SCAR differed by only one letter and were phonetically nearly indistinguishable. The addition of the “+” device or the house mark HEXILAK did not alter the position, as the rival marks were required to be compared as a whole. The Court prima facie rejected the contention that ACNESTAR was descriptive and held that ACNE+SCAR was being used as the name of the product rather than merely as a bona fide description of its intended purpose. Accordingly, the defences under Sections 30(2)(a) and 35, Trade Marks Act, 1999, did not, at this stage, disentitle Mankind to interim relief.
The Court further held that the rival products were allied and cognate goods, as they catered to the same consumer segment and were sold through common channels, including chemists and online platforms. Applying the stricter standard of deceptive similarity applicable to medicinal products, the Court observed that the possibility of consumers or chemists confusing one product with the other could not be ruled out. It accordingly found the use of the impugned mark to prima facie constitute infringement under Section 29(2)(b), Trade Marks Act.
On the pleas of delay and acquiescence, the Court held that delay, by itself, was not a ground to refuse an injunction against infringement and that acquiescence required a positive act, not merely silence or inaction. Considering Mankind’s registration since 2005, cumulative sales of approximately ₹540 crores, the absence of registration of the impugned mark in Defendant 2’s favour, and the risk of confusion involving medicinal products, the Court held that the balance of convenience lay in Mankind’s favour and that refusal of injunction would cause irreparable harm.
Decision
The Court restrained the defendants, till final adjudication of the suit, from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising or otherwise dealing in pharmaceutical or medicinal preparations, skin care preparations, or allied and cognate goods under the marks “ACNE SCAR”, “ACNE + SCAR”, “ACNESCAR”, or any other mark deceptively similar to “ACNESTAR”. Considering that Defendant 2 had been selling the product since 2022, it granted 2 months to recall existing stock and withdraw online listings. The Court clarified that this period did not permit further manufacture, advertising, offering for sale or supply under the impugned mark.
The Court clarified that the injunction operated forthwith, that the defendants remained free to describe their product, in the ordinary descriptive sense, as a serum for acne scars, and that its observations were only prima facie.
Accordingly, the application was allowed.
Also Read: Delhi High Court restrains rogue JIO Lottery Websites | SCC Times
[Mankind Consumer Products (P) Ltd. v. Alaina Healthcare (P) Ltd., CS(COMM) 280 of 2026, decided on 16-10-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Plaintiff: Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate, along with Ankur Sangal, Prateush, Ankit Arvind, Saumya Bajpai, Swastik Sant and Sugandha, Advocates
For the Defendant: Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate and Manish K. Jha, Senior Advocate with Ananya Kumar, Utkarsh Khandelwal, Ishan Gaur, Vaibhav Khanna, Shreya Sethi, Krisna Gambhir and Ritwik Sharma, Advocates
