Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Tejas Karia has directed the removal of the trademark “UNKIND” from the Register of Trade Marks. The Court held that the impugned mark was confusingly similar to the established “KIND Family of Marks” of the petitioner, thereby contravening statutory provisions. The Court ordered the Trade Marks Registry to cancel the impugned registration and to ensure compliance by transmission of the order to the Registrar of Trade Marks.

The present proceedings arose from a rectification petition filed under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petitioner sought the removal of the trademark “UNKIND,” registered under Application No. 1711563 in Class 35, in the name of the respondent. The matter was initially filed before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), but was transferred to the High Court of Delhi following the abolition of IPAB pursuant to the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalization and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021.

Also Read: Supreme Court | Judicial Review Confined to Procedural Errors | High Court Orders Set Aside | Removal with Superannuation Benefits Restored

The petitioner company, incorporated in 1991, has been engaged in the manufacture and marketing of medicinal, pharmaceutical, and veterinary preparations. Its predecessor-in-interest had adopted the mark “MANKIND” in 1986, which subsequently expanded into a family of trademarks containing the element “KIND.” The petitioner holds over 300 registrations where the word “KIND” appears, including registration of “MANKIND” across all 45 classes.

The respondent adopted the impugned mark “UNKIND” on 17 July 2008 with a user claim dating back to 30 June 2006. Upon discovering the registration, the petitioner issued a cease and desist notice, which was not responded to. This prompted the initiation of rectification proceedings.

The Registrar of Trade Marks was arrayed as Respondent No. 2, while Respondent No. 1 remained absent despite service through conventional and electronic means, including WhatsApp. Consequently, Respondent No. 1 was proceeded against ex parte.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the company had achieved substantial turnover, including an annual revenue of ₹3,525.56 crores in 2017, with over ₹1,300 crores attributed to products bearing “KIND”-related marks. The mark “MANKIND” had also been determined a well-known trademark under Rule 124 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, and published accordingly.

It was further contended that the petitioner’s long-standing and continuous usage of the “KIND” family of marks had led to the acquisition of extensive goodwill and reputation, both within India and internationally. Counsel argued that the impugned mark had not been used bona fide, thereby rendering it liable to removal under Section 47(1)(a) and (b) of the Act.

Reliance was placed on judicial precedents, including Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 6914, where it was observed that the element “KIND” in pharmaceutical trademarks had become exclusively associated with the petitioner. Counsel argued that the adoption of “UNKIND” was dishonest, likely to cause confusion, and intended to take undue advantage of the petitioner’s established goodwill.

Respondent No. 2, appearing formally through counsel, submitted that it would abide by any order passed by the Court.

The Court recorded: “In the absence of any appearance and reply by Respondent No. 1, the pleadings made in the present Petition have remained uncontroverted. Accordingly, for all purposes, the pleadings herein are deemed to have been admitted by Respondent No. 1.”

It was observed: “The Petitioner has several Trade Mark registrations granted in its favour that use the word ‘KIND’ as a suffix. Hence, the Petitioner has developed a Family of Marks with the word ‘KIND’ as an essential part of the Petitioner’s Trade Marks.”

Referring to precedent, the Court stated: “In Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2015 SCC OnLine Del 6914, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has observed that the word ‘KIND’ has no relation to sale of the Pharmaceutical products and the Petitioner having established its first user of the word ‘KIND’ in the pharmaceutical market is entitled to a higher protection for the word ‘KIND’.”

The Court further recorded: “Although the word ‘KIND’ is not related to the pharmaceutical products being sold by the Petitioner, but due to its continuous and extensive usage, the said mark has come to be exclusively associated with the Petitioner, and this would entitle the Petitioner to a higher protection for the KIND Family of Marks.”

It added: “Merely changing the first part of the Impugned Trade Mark and using the distinguishing family name or characteristic is likely to cause confusion in the market.”

On priority of use, the Court noted: “From the averments made in the Petition and the evidence on record, the Petitioner has established that it is the prior registered proprietor and a prior user of the mark ‘MANKIND’ and KIND Family of Marks since the year 1986 through its predecessor.”

Finally, the Court concluded: “The Impugned Trade Mark is confusingly / deceptively similar to the Petitioner’s prior adopted, registered Mark ‘MANKIND’ and KIND Family of Marks. The Impugned Trade Mark has been adopted by Respondent No. 1 dishonestly to trade upon the established goodwill and reputation of the Petitioner and to project itself to be associated with the Petitioner.”

The Court directed: “Accordingly, the present Petition is allowed and the Trade Marks Registry is directed to remove the Impugned Trade Mark ‘UNKIND’ bearing Application No. 1711563 registered in Class 35 from the Register of Trade Marks.”

Also Read: Bombay High Court | Registration of Film Title With Producers’ Association Does Not Create Exclusive Statutory Right | Copyright Act Clarified as Court Dismisses ‘Lootere’ Injunction Plea

It further ordered: “The Registry is directed to send a copy of the present order to the Trade Mark Registry at e-mail - llc-ipo@gov.in for compliance.”

These directives effectively quashed the registration of the impugned mark, mandating its removal from official records, with the Registrar of Trade Marks instructed to take immediate steps to implement the decision.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Hemant Paswani, Ms. Saumya Bajpai, and Ms. Pranjal, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Nishant Gautam, CGSC with Mr. Shaurya Mani Pandey and Mr. Prithviraj Dey, Advocates

Case Title: Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Ram Kumar M/s Dr. Kumars Pharmaceuticals

Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:7142

Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 566/2022

Bench: Justice Tejas Karia