Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has restrained a pharmaceutical company, De Harbien Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., from using the marks “NEFROKIND” and “SILOKIND,” observing that these were deceptively similar to Mankind Pharma Limited’s established trademarks “MANKIND,” “KIND,” and related “KIND” formative variants. The Court held that the defendant’s use of the impugned marks on identical pharmaceutical goods was likely to cause confusion among consumers and unfairly benefit from the plaintiff’s goodwill. Accordingly, it issued an ex parte ad interim injunction prohibiting the defendant and its agents from manufacturing, selling, or advertising products under the disputed marks until further orders.

The plaintiff, Mankind Pharma Limited, filed a commercial suit against De Harbien Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., alleging infringement of its registered trademarks “MANKIND,” “KIND,” and several “KIND” formative marks such as “NUROKIND,” “SIVOKIND,” and “PILOKIND.” The plaintiff stated that it had been using these marks since 1986 for pharmaceutical and healthcare products and that “MANKIND” was declared a well-known trademark by the Trade Marks Registry in 2020. It claimed extensive use and recognition of these marks across India and abroad, supported by substantial sales and advertising expenditure.

Also Read: Supreme Court : Teachers Qualifying TET Within Extended RTE Deadline Cannot Be Dismissed for Not Having It at Appointment

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had dishonestly adopted and used the marks “NEFROKIND” and “SILOKIND” for similar pharmaceutical products. The plaintiff first became aware of the defendant’s trademark application for “NEFROKIND” in June 2025 and later discovered its active use on the defendant’s website and e-commerce platforms in September 2025. A cease-and-desist notice issued by the plaintiff was refused, with the defendant asserting independent creation of the marks and denying similarity.

The plaintiff contended that the defendant’s applications for registration of the disputed marks had previously been refused by the Trade Marks Registry, evidencing mala fide intent. The plaintiff produced trademark registration certificates, sales figures, advertising records, and relevant trademark journals as supporting evidence. Relief was sought under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, along with provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Applications were also filed seeking exemption from pre-institution mediation and permission to file additional documents, citing urgency in preventing continued infringement.

The Court observed: “The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademark ‘MANKIND’, ‘KIND’, ‘NUROKIND’, ‘SIVOKIND’ and ‘PILOKIND’ in Classes 5, 35 and 44 and has been using the same with respect to the pharmaceutical products.” It stated: “The trademark MANKIND has also been declared as well-known.”

The Court recorded: “The use of the word KIND by the Plaintiff for the pharmaceutical industry was first in point of time since 1986.” It noted: “The facts set out in the plaint… evidence the formidable reputation and goodwill built by the plaintiff in its trademark ‘MANKIND’ and ‘KIND’ and the formative marks of ‘KIND’ especially in the pharmaceuticals industry.”

The Court recorded: “The Plaintiff’s product NUROKIND generated revenue of 430.58 crores in the financial year 2019–20.” It further noted: “The voluminous sales of the Plaintiff’s products and its advertisement expenses… evidence the goodwill associated with the plaintiff’s pharmaceutical products bearing the formative marks ‘KIND’.”

The Court observed: “Defendant is in pharmaceutical industry and is bound to be aware of the reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiff’s mark and its products.” It recorded: “The Defendant’s use of the impugned marks ‘NEFROKIND’ and ‘SILOKIND’ by making only minimal modifications to the Plaintiff’s registered mark ‘NUROKIND’, ‘SILVOKIND’ and ‘PILOKIND’… appears to be with an intent to exploit the Plaintiffs’ established goodwill and mislead the public.”

The Court stated: “The Defendant is using the impugned mark on identical goods in the same line of business, whilst catering to the same class of consumers as the Plaintiff. Consequently, there is inevitably going to be a likelihood of confusion, and an unwary customer with average intelligence and imperfect recollection will associate the Defendant’s impugned product with the Plaintiff’s products.”

It concluded: “The Plaintiff has been able to make out a good prima facie case in its favour. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants.”

Also Read: Delhi High Court Stays Single Judge’s Order Transferring ‘Bima Sugam’ Domain Names

The Court directed: “Till the next date of hearing restraining the Defendant, its proprietors, partners or directors, as the case may be, its principal officers, servants, distributors, dealers and agents, and all others acting for and on behalf of the Defendant are restrained, from selling, offering for sale, supplying, advertising, using and/or directly or indirectly dealing in any goods and services under the impugned trademarks ‘NEFROKIND’, ‘SILOKIND’ and or any other trade mark as may be identical to or deceptively similar with the Plaintiff’s registered trade mark ‘MANKIND’, ‘KIND’, ‘NUROKIND’, ‘SIVOKIND’, ‘PILOKIND’ and ‘KIND’ formative trademarks.”

The Court further ordered: “Issue notice to the Defendants through all modes. The reply to the application be filed within a period of four (4) weeks… Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter. Compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC be done within a period of one (1) week from today.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Chander Lall, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ankur Sangal, Mr. Ankit Arvind, Ms. Nidhi Pathak, Mr. Rishabh Rao, and Ms. Annanya Mehan, Advocates.

Case Title: Mankind Pharma Limited v. De Harbien Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1185/2025 and I.As. 27605-10/2025
Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora