Holding that adopting a family of marks subsuming a registered trademark for identical pharmaceutical goods is deliberate free-riding, not coincidence, the Delhi High Court has declared Mankind Pharma, a well-known trademark holder, established prior use of MANKIND since 1986 and a family of over 100 ‘KIND’ formative marks including FLOKIND, COXKIND, NUROKIND, AMLOKIND, MOXIKIND, RABEKIND and PANTAKIND, with FY 2025-26 turnover crossing Rs. 10,421 crores.
The Court also found Coskind Pharma’s use of FLORAKIND, COSKIND, ETORIKIND, PANDOKIND, RABELKIND and M-PREDKIND prima facie to subsume the Plaintiff’s registered ‘KIND’ marks and to closely track specific prior registrations such as FLOKIND, COXKIND, PANTAKIND and RABEKIND for identical pharmaceutical goods. The Trade Marks Registry’s own objection under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, citing Mankind’s COXKIND against the Defendant’s Director’s application for COSKIND, was treated as significant corroboration of deceptive similarity.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Cadila Health Care Ltd. vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [(2001) 5 SCC 73], the High Court reiterated that the threshold for proving confusing similarity is materially lower in the case of medicinal products, given the heightened public interest in drug safety and consumer trust. Accordingly, the Court granted ex parte ad interim injunction, appointed a Local Commissioner to raid the Defendant’s Kanpur premises, seize offending goods and stock registers, and fixed the Commissioner’s fee at Rs. 2 lakhs plus expenses, with the order itself kept off the website until execution of the commission.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademarks MANKIND and KIND in Classes 05, 35 and 44, as also of FLOKIND, COXKIND, RABEKIND, PANTAKIND and other KIND formative marks, and has been commercially using these marks for years. The steadily rising sales turnover crossing Rs. 10,000 crores in FY 2025-26, sustained promotional expenditure, and celebrity endorsements reflect the formidable reputation and goodwill built by the Plaintiff, which has been protected by the Court in several prior proceedings including Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [CS(OS) 2047/2014] and Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Sebakind Pvt Ltd. [CS(COMM) 484/2020].
The Court noted that the Defendant’s adoption of impugned marks, each of which appropriates and subsumes the suffix ‘KIND’ and closely tracks the Plaintiff’s marks FLOKIND/FLORA, COXKIND, PANTAKIND and RABEKIND for identical goods, prima facie amounts to infringement of the Plaintiff’s registered trademarks. Significantly, the Trade Marks Registry itself cited the Plaintiff’s trademark COXKIND against the application filed by the Defendant’s Director for COSKIND, indicating that the marks were found to be deceptively similar.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [(2001) 5 SCC 73], the Court observed that public interest supports a lesser degree of proof showing confusing similarity in the case of trademarks for medicinal products as compared to non-medicinal products. The Court further noted that by adopting the impugned marks, the Defendant has attempted to ride on the Plaintiff’s goodwill and mislead consumers into believing that its products have an association with the Plaintiff, thereby causing irreparable harm and injury to the Plaintiff’s reputation and goodwill, which prima facie amounts to passing off.
Also read Supreme Court Directs CBSE To Extend Class 7 Three-Language Policy Relaxation To Class 6 Students
Briefly, Mankind Pharma Limited, the fourth largest pharmaceutical company in India and the number one prescription drug company by volumes, filed a commercial suit against Coskind Pharma Private Limited seeking ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the Defendant from using marks that subsume its registered trademarks. Founded in 1986 and incorporated in 1991, the Plaintiff has built a formidable reputation with a sales turnover of approximately Rs. 10,421 crores in FY 2025-26, an employee base of about 23,000 across 34 countries, and a portfolio spanning pharmaceuticals, OTC drugs, FMCG and diagnostic kits.
The Plaintiff adopted the trademark MANKIND in 1986 and has secured registrations in Classes 3, 5, 35 and 44, with the mark being declared a well-known trademark by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The Plaintiff has also built a family of ‘KIND’ formative trademarks such as FLOKIND, COXKIND, NUROKIND, AMLOKIND, MOXIKIND, RABEKIND, PANTAKIND, DOLOKIND and others, with annual turnover of the top 25 KIND products alone standing at Rs. 3.22 lakhs in FY 2025-26.
In the fourth week of August 2026, the Plaintiff discovered the Defendant offering for sale pharmaceutical products under the trademarks FLORAKIND, COSKIND, ETORIKIND, PANDOKIND, RABELKIND and M-PREDKIND on IndiaMart. The Defendant’s Director, Mr. Mohammad Saqib, had also filed trademark application for COSKIND in Class 05 on 25 January 2024, against which the Registry raised an objection under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 citing the Plaintiff’s prior registered mark COXKIND.
