Delhi HC Protects Mankind Pharma’s ‘Kind’ Trademark, Bars Similar Names

Delhi High Court Protects Mankind Pharma’s ‘Kind’ Trademark Family, Restrains Use of ‘Dickind’, ‘Lonokind’, ‘Fenkind’ and ‘Chimokind’

Court Finds “Triple Identity” in Marks, Products, and Trade Channels; Says Defendants’ Use is Prima Facie Dishonest

Mankind Pharma’s Longstanding Reputation in ‘Kind’ Marks Recognized; Interim Injunction Granted Until Next Hearing

By Our Legal Reporter

New Delhi: October 11, 2025:

The Delhi High Court has once again come to the aid of Mankind Pharma Limited, one of India’s largest pharmaceutical companies, by granting an ex-parte interim injunction against the use of deceptively similar trademarks such as “Dickind”, “Lonokind”, “Fenkind”, and “Chimokind”.

Justice Tejas Karia, while hearing the matter, observed that the impugned marks were “indistinguishable” from Mankind’s well-known “Kind” family of trademarks and that their use was likely to cause confusion among consumers. The court held that this was a classic case of “triple identity”—where the marks, the product category, and the trade channels were all identical.

The ruling reinforces Mankind Pharma’s stronghold over its “Kind” brand family, which includes popular marks such as Mankind, Fertikind, Fendikind, Zenkind, and Dizikind.

Case Background

The case titled Mankind Pharma Limited v. Biodiscovery Lifesciences Private Limited (CS(COMM) 1016/2025) was filed after Mankind discovered that the defendant company was marketing pharmaceutical products under the names Dickind, Lonokind, Fenkind, and Chimokind.

Mankind argued that these marks were deceptively like its registered trademarks.
It claimed that the defendants were attempting to ride on the goodwill and reputation built by Mankind over decades.
The company’s earliest trademark registration dates to 1995, making it the prior adopter and user of the “Kind” family of marks.

Mankind sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using these marks, along with damages and other reliefs.

Court’s Observations

Justice Karia made several important findings:

📌 Triple Identity Test: The court noted that the marks, the product category (pharmaceuticals), and the trade channels (medical stores, hospitals, and healthcare providers) were identical. This made the likelihood of confusion extremely high.
📌 Goodwill and Reputation: The court recognized that Mankind Pharma had established long and continuous use of its trademarks, which had acquired significant goodwill in India and abroad.
📌 Dishonest Adoption: The defendants’ use of the impugned marks was described as prima facie dishonest, aimed at misleading consumers and unfairly benefiting from Mankind’s reputation.
📌 Consumer Trust: The court warned that such infringing activities could lead to erosion of consumer trust, which is particularly dangerous in the pharmaceutical sector where patient safety is at stake.

The court therefore restrained the defendants from using the impugned marks until the next hearing, scheduled for January 28, 2026.

Previous Rulings on Mankind’s Trademarks

This is not the first time the Delhi High Court has protected Mankind Pharma’s “Kind” family of marks.

In September 2025, the court ordered the removal of the trademark “Unkind” from the Register of Trademarks, holding that Mankind was entitled to higher protection for its “Kind” marks.
Earlier, the court had also restrained other pharmaceutical companies from using deceptively similar marks such as “Fenkind” and “Zenokind”.

These consistent rulings highlight the judiciary’s recognition of Mankind Pharma’s well-known trademark status.

Legal Principles Involved

The case touches upon several important principles of trademark law:

Well-Known Marks: Under Section 2(1) (zg) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, a well-known mark enjoys broader protection, even against unrelated goods. Mankind’s “Kind” marks have been recognized as well-known by the Registrar of Trademarks.
Triple Identity Test: Courts often apply this test to determine infringement—if the mark, goods, and trade channels are identical, confusion is presumed.
Dishonest Adoption: When a defendant adopts a mark that is deceptively like a well-known brand, courts infer dishonesty and grant injunctions.
Public Interest in Pharma Cases: In pharmaceutical disputes, courts adopt a stricter approach because confusion can have life-threatening consequences.

Reactions from the Legal Community

The ruling has been welcomed by intellectual property (IP) lawyers and brand protection experts:

Trademark Lawyers: They note that the judgment strengthens the protection of well-known marks and sends a strong message against free riding.
Pharma Industry Experts: They emphasize that consumer safety is paramount in the pharmaceutical sector, and confusingly similar marks can lead to dangerous mix-ups in prescriptions.
Corporate Counsel: Many in-house counsels see this as a reminder for companies to conduct thorough trademark searches before launching new products.

Implications for the Pharma Industry

The ruling has several implications:

For Mankind Pharma: It reinforces the company’s dominance over the “Kind” brand family and deters competitors from adopting similar marks.
For Competitors: Smaller pharma companies will need to be more cautious in branding, as courts are likely to take a strict view of similarities.
For Consumers: The decision protects patients from confusion, ensuring that they receive the correct medicines.
For Trademark Law: The case adds to the growing body of jurisprudence where Indian courts have given strong protection to well-known marks.

Broader Context: Trademark Battles in Pharma

The pharmaceutical industry has seen several high-profile trademark disputes in recent years:

Cipla v. Sun Pharma: Over similar-sounding respiratory drug names.
Pfizer v. Generic Manufacturers: Over the use of “Viagra” variants.
Glenmark v. Merck: On the use of similar anti-diabetic drug names.

These cases highlight the high stakes in pharma branding, where even minor similarities can lead to litigation.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s interim injunction in favour of Mankind Pharma is a significant reaffirmation of the principle that well-known trademarks deserve the highest level of protection. By restraining the use of deceptively similar marks like Dickind, Lonokind, Fenkind, and Chimokind, the court has safeguarded both the company’s goodwill and the interests of consumers.

As the main suit proceeds, the case will likely serve as a benchmark for future trademark disputes in the pharmaceutical sector, reinforcing the message that dishonest adoption of similar marks will not be tolerated.