Delhi High Court: In an application filed by Mankind Pharma Limited (‘Mankind’) under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, (‘CPC’) for grant of a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing on the Mankind’s trade mark, ‘KIND’, FENDIKIND’, ‘ZENKIND’ and ‘DIZIKIND’, the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J, held that the defendants products were deceptively similar to those of the Mankind and amounted to infringement of Mankind’strade marks. Accordingly, the Court restrained the defendants from using Mankind’s trade marks till further notice.
Background
The plaintiff, Mankind Pharma Ltd. is engaged in the manufacturing and supply of medicinal, pharmaceutical, consumer healthcare and wellness products across India and globally. It is the registered proprietor for trade marks of products, ‘FENDIKIND’, ‘ZENKIND’ and ‘DIZIKIND’.
The products and services of Mankind have acquired tremendous goodwill and reputation in India and all over the world, and Mankind’s trade marks, ‘MANKIND’ and ‘KIND’ has also been declared as a well-known trade mark by the Registrar of Trade Marks under Rule 124 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.
In august, 2025, tMankind had come across the defendant’s product, ‘FENKIND’ as well as other products by the names ‘DICKIND’, ‘LONOKIND’, ‘FENKIND’ and ‘CHIMOKIND’, listed on the defendant’s website and other e-commerce platforms like Tata 1mg.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court noted that Mankind had established long and continuous use of its trade mark which had been registered all the way back in 1995. The use of Mankind’s trade mark by the defendant was nothing more than an attempt to ride on the established goodwill and reputation of the defendants and was thus a prima facie dishonest attempt to confuse the market.
The Court further noted that the instant case was that of triple identity where the marks were identical, the product category was identical and the trade channel as well as the consumer base was identical.
The Court therefore opined that, Mankind being the prior user and adopter of the marke ‘KIND’ was entitled to protection.
Accordingly, the Court held that Mankind had made out a prima facie case for grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction. Balance of convenience was in favour of Mankind and against the defendant and irreparable injury would have been caused to Mankind if an ex-parte ad-interim injunction was not granted.
Furthermore, till the next date of hearing, the Court restrained the defendant, its directors associates, affiliates, licensees, distributors, dealers, agents, and all others acting for or on its behalf, from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in medicinal, pharmaceutical, consumer healthcare and wellness products under the marks, ‘DICKIND’, ‘LONOKIND’, ‘FENKIND’ and ‘CHIMOKIND’ or any other trade mark that may be identical or deceptively similar to Mankind’s trade marks, ‘MANKIND’, ‘KIND’, ‘FENDIKIND’, ‘ZENKIND’ and ‘DIZIKIND’, amounting to infringement and / or passing off of Mankind’s trade marks.
The matter was further listed for 28-1-2026
[Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Biodiscovery Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd., C.S. (COMM) No. 1016 of 2025, decided on 24-9-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: Ankur Sangal, Ankit Arvind, Nidhi Pathak, Rishab Rao, Advocates