Delhi High Court: In a trade mark infringement and passing off suit instituted by Mankind Pharma Ltd., a Single Judge Bench of Jyoti Singh, J., granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from dealing in pharmaceutical products under the marks “Florakind”, “Coskind”, “Etorikind”, “Pandokind”, “Rabelkind” and “M-Predkind”, or any other identical or deceptively similar “KIND”-formative mark or trade name.
The Court noted that the Mankind Pharma Ltd. was the registered proprietor of “Mankind”, “Kind” and several “Kind”-formative marks, including “Flokind”, “Coxkind”, “Rabekind” and “Pantakind”, and had acquired substantial goodwill and reputation through long and extensive use. Prima facie, the defendant’s adoption of marks incorporating the “Kind” element in relation to identical or similar pharmaceutical goods was held to be deceptively similar to Mankind Pharma Ltd.’s marks and likely to cause confusion among consumers. Relying on Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73, the Court reiterated that medicinal marks warrant a stricter approach to confusing similarity in view of the potential consequences for public health. The Court further found a prima facie case of passing off and held that the balance of convenience and likelihood of irreparable injury favoured Mankind Pharma Ltd.
Background
The plaintiff, Mankind Pharma Ltd., a pharmaceutical company and proprietor of the trade marks “Mankind”, “Kind” and various formative marks, including “Flokind” and “Coxkind”, claimed substantial goodwill and reputation in its family of “Kind” marks, which it had used since 1986. In August 2026, Mankind Pharma Ltd. discovered that the defendant was offering pharmaceutical products under marks including “Florakind”, “Etorikind”, “Pandokind”, “Rabelkind” and “M-Predkind”, and was also using “Coskind” as a trade name. Alleging that the impugned marks incorporated Mankind Pharma Ltd.’s registered “Kind” mark and were deceptively similar to its family of marks, particularly in respect of identical or similar pharmaceutical goods, Mankind Pharma Ltd. instituted the suit alleging trade mark infringement and passing off. Mankind Pharma Ltd. contended that the defendant’s adoption of multiple “Kind”-formative marks was deliberate and intended to exploit its established goodwill and reputation, and that use of the marks in relation to pharmaceutical products could result in public confusion and prejudice. The Mankind Pharma Ltd. accordingly sought interim injunctive relief against the defendant under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC.
Analysis
The Court held that Mankind Pharma Ltd. had made out a prima facie case for grant of an ex parte ad interim injunction, with the balance of convenience also lying in its favour and likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of injunction. The Court noted that Mankind Pharma Ltd. was the registered proprietor of “Mankind”, “Kind” and several Kind formative marks, including “Flokind”, “Coxkind”, “Rabekind” and “Pantakind”, and had built formidable goodwill and reputation through long and extensive commercial use. The defendant’s impugned marks, which appropriated and subsumed the suffix “Kind” and closely tracked Mankind Pharma Ltd.’s marks, were prima facie found to be deceptively similar in respect of identical/similar pharmaceutical goods, with common consumers and trade channels, giving rise to a likelihood of confusion. Relying on Cadila Health Care the Court reiterated that, in the case of medicinal products, public interest warrants a lesser degree of proof of confusing similarity. The Court further held that the defendant had prima facie attempted to ride on Mankind Pharma Ltd.’s goodwill and reputation and mislead consumers into believing an association with Mankind Pharma Ltd., thereby amounting to passing off and causing irreparable injury.
Decision
Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, the defendant and all persons acting on its behalf were restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, marketing or otherwise dealing in the impugned goods under the marks “Florakind”, “Coskind”, “Etorikind”, “Pandokind”, “Rabelkind”, “M-Predkind” or any other identical/deceptively similar Kind formative trade mark or trade name. Mankind Pharma Ltd. was also directed to comply with Order 39 Rule 3 CPC within 2 weeks from execution of the local commission.
Also Read: SC on Blenders Pride trade mark infringement case | SCC Times
[Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Coskind Pharma (P) Ltd., CS(COMM) 1011 of 2026, decided on 16-9-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: Chander M. Lall, Senior Advocate with Ankur Sangal, Prateush Sharma, Ankit Arvind, Shaurya Pandey, Saumya Bajpai, Annanya Mehan and Swastik Sant, Advocates
