Delhi High Court Orders Removal of 'KINDPAN' Trademark, Citing Mankind Pharma's "Well-Known" 'KIND' Family of Marks.


02 April 2025 Trademark Laws in India >> Intellectual Property Rights  

In Mankind Pharma Limited v/s Preet Kamal Grewal & Another., the Delhi High Court has ordered the removal of the trademark 'KINDPAN', registered under application no. 2795896 in Class 5 for medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations, in a significant victory for pharmaceutical giant Mankind Pharma Limited. The Court's decision, delivered in a petition filed by Mankind Pharma under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, reinforces the company's long-established rights over its "well-known" 'KIND' family of marks.

Mankind Pharma, incorporated in 1991, traces the adoption of its prominent 'MANKIND' trademark back to 1986 through its predecessor, 'MANKIND PHARMA'. The company has grown to become a substantial player in the pharmaceutical industry, with its 24 top 'KIND' brands reportedly generating an audited annual turnover of over Rs. 1,300 Crores in 2018. Its annual turnover reached Rs. 4794 Crores for the financial year 2019-2020.

 
 

The petitioner holds registrations for the trademark 'MANKIND' across all 45 classes of the Act and possesses over 300 trademarks incorporating 'MANKIND' or 'KIND' as a key element. Notably, the trademark 'MANKIND' has been officially declared a "well-known trademark" as per Section 2(1)(zg) of the Act in Journal No. 1978 dated December 14, 2020.

The dispute arose when Respondent No. 1, M/s Sanavita Medicare, a proprietorship firm, obtained registration for 'KINDPAN' on August 22, 2014, in Class 5 for medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations, based on a "proposed to be used" basis. Crucially, at this time, Mankind Pharma already held a subsisting registration for the very same trademark 'KIND' (registration no. 2457970 dated January 10, 2013) in Class 5 for medicinal, pharmaceutical, and veterinary preparations.

The petition, initially filed before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) and later transferred to the Delhi High Court after IPAB's dissolution, saw no appearance from Respondent No. 1 despite due service, leading the Court to proceed ex-parte against them. Respondent No. 2, the Trademark Registry, also failed to file a reply.

Mankind Pharma's counsel argued that the 'KIND' element is its signature mark, functioning as a source identifier for its diverse products. They contended that the use of the 'KIND' family of marks in pharmaceuticals is neither generic nor descriptive, thus vesting exclusive usage rights with the petitioner. The counsel cited previous judgments, including Mankind Pharma Limited v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited, which affirmed the petitioner's claim to heightened protection due to long-standing use of the 'KIND' family of marks.

The Court, considering the undisputed facts due to the respondents' non-appearance, deemed all averments made by Mankind Pharma as admitted. It acknowledged that 'MANKIND' and the 'KIND' family of marks are unique, fanciful, and have gained substantial reputation and goodwill, being exclusively identified with Mankind Pharma, particularly for medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. The Court highlighted that Mankind Pharma had zealously protected these marks over time.

The judgment underscored that Respondent No. 1's adoption and application for the 'KINDPAN' mark, given its similarity and the same industry, raised "a shadow of doubt" and was likely an attempt to "encroach upon the established goodwill" of Mankind Pharma and cause confusion.

Citing well-settled legal principles from various precedents, including Caterpillar Inc., Bata India Ltd., and Neon Laboratories Ltd., which support the protection of established and "family of marks," the Court concluded that the registration of 'KINDPAN' was unsustainable. The Court also referenced its own pronouncements in Mankind PL v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited, Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Arvind Kumar Trading, and Mankind Pharma Limited v. Novakind Bio Sciences Private Limited, which recognized and reinforced the strength of Mankind Pharma's 'MANKIND' and 'KIND' family of marks.

Consequently, the Delhi High Court held that the registration of 'KINDPAN' granted to Respondent No. 1 was contrary to Sections 11(1) and 11(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and is therefore liable for removal from the Trade Marks Registry. The petition was allowed, and the Trade Marks Registry was directed to remove the impugned trademark 'KINDPAN'.

  TRADE MARKS ACT, 1999