Sanchayita lahkar

In a judgement pertaining to trademark disputes in the pharmaceutical sector, the High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee, ordered the removal of the trademark 'KINDPAN' from the Register of the Trade Marks Registry. The Court concluded that the registration was in contravention of Sections 11(1) and 11(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and was liable to be struck off following a petition brought under Section 57 of the Act.

The Bench issued this decision on April 2, 2025, following a hearing concluded on March 26, 2025. The directive mandates that the Trade Marks Registry take action to strike off the contested mark from Class 5 of the Act, which pertains to medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations.

Also Read: Even a Criminal Enjoys Safeguards as per Law, Supreme Court Sends Judgment on Arrest Procedures to DGPs Nationwide ; Warns That a Very Strict View Shall Be Taken if Police Exceed Their Limits

The petitioner, Mankind Pharma Limited, initiated proceedings for removal of the trademark 'KINDPAN' (registration no. 2795896 in Class 5) registered in the name of respondent no.1, Preet Kamal Grewal, a sole proprietor of M/s Sanavita Medicare based in Ludhiana, Punjab. The registration was granted on a "proposed to be used" basis on August 22, 2014.

Mankind Pharma Limited, incorporated in 1991 and originally operating under the trademark 'MANKIND' since 1986 through its Chairman and Founder, holds over 300 trademarks incorporating the terms 'MANKIND' or 'KIND' across various classes. The company submitted that it had registered the trademark 'KIND' vide registration no. 2457970 dated January 10, 2013, in Class 5 prior to the respondent’s application.

It was further submitted that the petitioner’s 'KIND' family of marks, especially the 'MANKIND' trademark, had garnered substantial goodwill and recognition within the pharmaceutical industry both domestically and internationally. Documents submitted included a Chartered Accountant Certificate detailing annual turnover from FY 2017-2018 to FY 2019-2020 (Rs. 3923 Cr, Rs. 3877 Cr, and Rs. 4794 Cr respectively), and Exhibit-E showing trademark registrations.

The petitioner maintained that its trademark 'MANKIND' was declared a "well-known trademark" under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Act in Journal No.1978 dated December 14, 2020. Promotional efforts, websites, and multiple legal actions to protect its marks were cited as evidence of consistent and vigilant brand enforcement.

Despite being duly served, respondent no.1 did not appear in the proceedings and was eventually proceeded ex-parte as per court order dated December 11, 2023. Respondent no.2, the Registrar of Trademarks, entered an appearance but failed to file a reply.

Petitioner's counsel argued that the mark ‘KINDPAN’ was deceptively similar to the petitioner’s 'KIND' family of trademarks and likely to mislead the public regarding the source of the goods. Several judicial precedents were cited including:

• Mankind Pharma Limited v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited (2015 SCC OnLine Del 6914)

• Caterpillar Inc. v. Mehtab Ahmed & Ors. (2002 SCC OnLine Del 865)

• Bata India Ltd. v. Chawla Boot House (2019 SCC OnLine Del 8147)

• Kirorimal Kashiram Marketing and Agencies Pvt. Ltd. v. Shree Sita Chawal Udyog (2010 SCC OnLine Del 2933)

• Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Arvind Kumar Trading (2023 SCC OnLine Del 2265)

• Mankind Pharma Limited v. Novakind Bio Sciences Private Limited (2023 SCC OnLine Del 4806)

• Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Themis Medicare Ltd. (2014 SCC OnLine Bom 1087)

The Court was also referred to Volume IV of McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition (Thomson West, 2006, 4th Ed.), supporting the principle that minor variations in a well-known family of marks may still cause public confusion.

The Court noted the petitioner’s consistent use of the trademark 'MANKIND' since 1986 and affirmed the uniqueness and fanciful nature of the 'MANKIND' and 'KIND' family of marks, stating that they were “neither generic nor laudatory and have no direct connection with the goods falling in Class 5.”

Justice Banerjee recorded: "There was no plausible occasion and/ or reason for [respondent no.1] to first adopt and then apply for the very impugned mark ‘KIND’ as that of the petitioner and which is similar in more than one way to the trademark ‘MANKIND’ and ‘KIND’ family of marks."

The Court found that respondent no.1’s use of the term ‘KIND’ appeared to be an attempt to benefit from the petitioner’s established goodwill and reputation: “The only plausible occasion and/ or reason for doing that is seemingly that the respondent no.1 wanted to encroach upon the established goodwill and built-up reputation of the petitioner...”

It further stated: “All these amount to diluting the distinctiveness of the trademark ‘MANKIND’ and ‘KIND’ family of marks belonging to the petitioner.”

Given the absence of any rebuttal or reply from the respondents, the Court accepted the averments made by the petitioner as unchallenged: “...under such circumstances all the said averments made therein, without any response/ denials thereto, are deemed admitted as true.”

Also Read: No Absolute Right to Bypass Section 12-A by Citing Urgent Interim Relief Without Justifying Any Reasonable Ground: J&K High Court

The Court concluded:

“...the registration of the impugned mark in the name of respondent no.1 is not sustainable and is liable to be taken off.”

It held that:

“...the registration of the trademark ‘KIND’ granted to the respondent no.1 is contrary to the provisions of Section(s) 11(1) and 11(2) of the Act and thus liable to removal/ cancellation/ strike off from the Register of the Trade Marks Registry.”

Accordingly, it directed:

“...the present petition is allowed and the Trade Marks Registry is directed to remove the impugned trademark ‘KINDPAN’ registered vide trademark no. 2795896 in Class 5 of the Act, issued in the name of respondent no.1.”

The Registry was also instructed to send a copy of the order to the Trade Marks Registry for compliance.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Hemant Daswani, Ms. Saumya Bajpai, and Ms. Pranjal

For the Respondents: Mr. Shashank Dixit and Mr. Rohit Gupta

Case Title: Mankind Pharma Limited vs Preet Kamal Grewal and Anr.

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:2231

Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 279/2022

Bench: Justice Saurabh Banerjee

[Read/Download order]