Delhi High Court Shields Mankind Pharma's 'KIND' Mark, Restrains 'FENKIND' for Trademark Infringement

Delhi High Court Shields Mankind Pharma's 'KIND' Mark, Restrains 'FENKIND' for Trademark Infringement

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has granted relief to Mankind Pharma Limited in its trademark infringement suit against Biodiscovery Lifesciences. The Court restrained the latter from using the mark “FENKIND” and other variations such as “DICKIND,” “LONOKIND,” and “CHIMOKIND,” and held that these were deceptively similar to Mankind’s well-known “KIND” family of trademarks.

Factual Background

Mankind Pharma, a public company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, has established itself as one of the leading players in pharmaceuticals, medicinal products, consumer healthcare, and wellness. The company enjoys significant goodwill and reputation in India as well as across global markets. Mankind has a wide portfolio of trademarks registered in India and abroad, including its flagship mark “MANKIND” and the “KIND” family of trademarks.

Procedural Background

The plaintiff discovered the defendant’s use of “FENKIND” and other “KIND” suffixed marks on its website and on various e-commerce platforms. The plaintiff argued that this was a clear attempt to exploit the established goodwill of its brand and to mislead consumers. The defendant’s adoption of the impugned marks was alleged to be dishonest and amounted to infringement as well as passing off.

Issues

1. Trademark Infringement: Whether the defendant’s use of “FENKIND” and similar marks constitutes trademark infringement.

2. Passing Off: Whether the defendant’s actions amount to passing off.

Reasoning & Analysis

The Court observed that the case presented a situation of “triple identity” since the marks, the product category, and the consumer base were identical. It held that the similarities between the impugned marks and the plaintiff’s marks were so close that they were indistinguishable. The Court recognized the goodwill built by Mankind Pharma over decades and ruled that the use of “FENKIND” and similar marks would inevitably lead to confusion in the market and erosion of consumer trust.

Decision

The Court passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining Biodiscovery Lifesciences, its directors, agents, and distributors from manufacturing, selling, or advertising medicinal, pharmaceutical, and healthcare products under the impugned marks or any other deceptively similar marks.

Implications

The decision highlights the importance of protecting well-known trademarks and the potential consequences of trademark infringement and passing off.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s judgment in this case provides clarity on the protection of trademark families and the factors considered in determining trademark infringement and passing off. The decision is significant for companies with well-known trademarks and those operating in the pharmaceutical industry.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Ankur Sangal (Partner), Mr Ankit Arvind (Principal Associate), Mr Shashwat Rakshit, (Senior Associate), Ms Nidhi Pathak (Associate) and Mr. Rishab Rao (Associate) of Khaitan & Co.