Mankind Pharma Limited vs Kindmedics Pharmaceutical India ... on 29 January, 2026

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Mankind Pharma Limited vs Kindmedics Pharmaceutical India ... on 29 January, 2026

Bench: Jyoti Singh

                          $~40
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                          +         CS(COMM) 83/2026

                                    MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED                          .....Plaintiff
                                                Through: Mr. Gopal Jain, Senior Advocate with
                                                Mr. Ankur Sangal, Mr. Ankit Arvind, Ms. Nidhi
                                                Pathak and Mr. Rishabh Rao, Advocates.

                                                                  versus

                                    KINDMEDICS PHARMACEUTICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
                                                                          .....Defendant
                                                 Through:

                                    CORAM:
                                    HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
                                                                  ORDER

% 29.01.2026 I.A. 2466/2026 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

I.A. 2467/2026 (u/S 149 r/w Section 151 CPC)

3. This application is filed on behalf of the Plaintiff seeking extension of time by two weeks for filing the court fees.

4. Mr. Ankur Sangal, counsel for the Plaintiff seeks and is granted 10 days to deposit the requisite court fee.

5. Application stands disposed of.

I.A. 2465/2026 (u/O XI Rule 1 (4) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 r/w Section 151 CPC)

6. This application is filed on behalf of the Plaintiff seeking to place on CS(COMM) 83/2026 Page 1 of 25 This is a digitally signed order.

7. Plaintiff, if it wishes to file additional documents at a later stage, shall do so strictly in accordance with provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

8. Application is allowed and disposed of.

I.A. 2464/2026 (for pre-institution mediation)

9. This application is filed on behalf of the Plaintiff under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking exemption from Pre-Institution Mediation.

10. Having regard to the facts of the present case wherein urgent relief is prayed for and in light of the judgment of Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, (2024) 5 SCC 815, as also Division Bench of this Court in Chandra Kishore Chaurasia v. RA Perfumery Works Private Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3529, exemption is granted to the Plaintiff from Pre-Institution Mediation.

11. Application is allowed and disposed of.

CS(COMM) 81/2026

12. Let plaint be registered as a suit.

13. Upon filing of process fee, issue summons to the Defendant through all permissible modes, returnable before the learned Joint Registrar on 27.02.2026.

14. Summons shall state that the written statement shall be filed by the Defendant within 30 days from the receipt of summons along with affidavits of admission/denial of the documents filed by the Plaintiff.

15. It will be open to the Plaintiff to file replication within the stipulated CS(COMM) 83/2026 Page 2 of 25 This is a digitally signed order.

16. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same be sought and given the timeline prescribed in Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

17. Learned Joint Registrar will carry out admission/denial of documents and marking of exhibits.

I.A. 2463/2026 (u/O XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC)

18. This application is filed on behalf of the Plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction against the Defendant.

19. Issue notice to the Defendant through all permissible modes, returnable before Court on 08.04.2026.

20. As per the case set up by the Plaintiff, it is engaged in the business of medicinal and pharmaceutical goods. Founded in the year 1986, Plaintiff commenced its business under the name 'Mankind Pharma', which was later changed to 'Mankind Pharma Limited'. Plaintiff is the fourth largest pharmaceutical company of India engaged in manufacturing and supplying of medicinal, pharmaceutical, consumer healthcare and wellness products in India and globally, with sales turnover of approximately Rs. 9,264 crores in Financial Year 2023-2024 alone. Plaintiff operates in 34 countries and its products span from specialised pharmaceutical to popular over-the-counter (OTC) drugs, Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) and Diagnostic Kits.

21. It is stated that Plaintiff adopted the trademark/trade name 'MANKIND' in 1986 and has secured registrations in various classes as follows:-

CS(COMM) 83/2026 Page 3 of 25

22. It is stated that the said registrations are valid and subsisting. Plaintiff has registrations in MANKIND and other formative trademarks in several countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Canada, Cuba, Australia etc. Products and services under the trademark MANKIND have acquired tremendous goodwill and reputation globally and in India and the trademark has been declared as a 'well-known' trademark by the Registrar of Trade Marks under Rule 124 of Trade Marks Rules, 2017. Plaintiff has, since its inception, strategically incorporated 'KIND' as a prefix/suffix across its product portfolio to establish a distinct brand identity and market recognition. Illustratively, list of Plaintiff's trademark registrations for the CS(COMM) 83/2026 Page 6 of 25 This is a digitally signed order.

CS(COMM) 83/2026 Page 7 of 25

23. It is stated that trademark KIND has become a core component of Plaintiff's branding strategy and extensive use of KIND formative trademarks has established a strong reputation for quality in the pharmaceutical industry. Plaintiff also runs and maintains a website i.e., 'www.mankind.com', which was registered on 21.06.1995 and is accessible to customers worldwide providing information about Plaintiff's business and products. Plaintiff is also registered owner of various domain names as follows:-

24. Plaintiff has established a wide network of subsidiaries and entities/divisions with MANKIND/KIND as part of their trade name such as, DISCOVERY MANKIND/ , LIFE MANKIND/ , CS(COMM) 83/2026 Page 17 of 25 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/02/2026 at 20:38:19 SPECIAL MANKIND/ , FUTURE MANKIND/ , VET MANKIND/ , CARE MANKIND/ , PET MANKIND/ KINDCARE FOUNDATION, MANKIND PRIME/ , etc. These entities/divisions are widely recognised as part of the Plaintiff's group and KIND trademark is associated with Plaintiff and its group only.

25. It is stated that apart from statutory rights in the trademark/tradename MANKIND and other KIND formative trademarks owing to numerous trademark registrations, Plaintiff also possesses valuable common law rights over these trademarks having built immense goodwill and reputation due to extensive, continuous and commercial use of the trademarks. Formidable and enviable reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiff is evident from the annual sales turnover, which is best reflected from the following figures:-

CS(COMM) 83/2026 Page 18 of 25

26. It is stated that annual turnover for top 25 products of the Plaintiff under the KIND formative trademarks was Rs. 3,009.20 crores for Financial Year 2024-25 alone and the sales figures of top 25 products of the Plaintiff under the KIND formative trademarks over the years is as below:-

27. It is stated that Plaintiff has invested time, effort and money in promoting its products under the trademark/tradename MANKIND/ KIND/KIND formative trademarks on various platforms, print and electronic media. Many celebrities such as Mr. Amitabh Bachchan, Mr Rishi Kapoor, Ms. Shilpa Shetty, Ms. Kareena Kapoor, etc., have endorsed CS(COMM) 83/2026 Page 19 of 25 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/02/2026 at 20:38:19 Plaintiff's brand. Details of substantial amounts spent on advertisements and promotion campaigns over the years are as follows:-

28. It is stated that Plaintiff has been vigilant in protecting its statutory and common law rights in respect of marks MANKIND and KIND and several orders have been passed by this Court protecting the trademarks and the rights of the Plaintiff. Illustratively, reference is made to orders passed in Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd, CS(OS) 2047/2014, CS(COMM) 83/2026 Page 20 of 25 This is a digitally signed order.

29. It is stated that recently, Plaintiff came across the website of the Defendant viz., https://www.kindmedicspharma.com/, where Defendant is prominently using the trademark/tradename KINDMEDICS/ . Screenshots of Defendant's website are as follows:-

CS(COMM) 83/2026 Page 21 of 25

30. It is further stated that Plaintiff came across use of the impugned trademark KINDMEDICS by the Defendant on third-party website viz., https://www.indiamart.com/. Screenshot of the same is as below:-

31. It is stated that Defendant is not only using the trademark KINDMEDICS but also the tradename KINDMEDICS PHARMACEUTICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED and the logo , has been deliberately designed using dark blue colour, which is similar to the colour scheme of the Plaintiff in .

CS(COMM) 83/2026 Page 22 of 25

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/02/2026 at 20:38:19 Defendant's impugned mark is nearly identical/deceptively similar to Plaintiff's registered trademarks KIND and MANKIND and is being used to sell identical/similar goods and services. Comparative of the rival trademarks is as follows:-

32. It is stated that Plaintiff became aware of Defendant's adoption of impugned trademark/tradename KINDMEDICS/ on 01.09.2025, when it came across a trademark application bearing No. 6352735 filed in Class 05 on 'proposed to be used' basis. The Application is currently under the status "Objected", since Trade Marks Registry has raised an objection under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 on the ground that the impugned trademark is identical with or similar to Plaintiff's prior trademark KIND bearing application no. 2457970 under Class 05.

33. Learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff submits that Defendant's adoption and use of the deceptively similar trademarks is mala fide and amounts to infringement under Section 29 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 ('1999 Act'). Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademarks MANKIND, KIND/KIND formative trademarks in Classes 5, 10, 35 and 44 and by virtue of the registrations, Plaintiff has statutory right under Section 28 of 1999 Act to use the trademarks exclusively and to restrain third parties from infringing them. Defendant's trademark/tradename "KINDMEDCIS"/ clearly infringes Plaintiff's registered marks inasmuch as CS(COMM) 83/2026 Page 23 of 25 This is a digitally signed order.

34. It is further urged that Plaintiff has over the years built immense reputation and goodwill and Defendant is intending to ride on the reputation of the Plaintiff and misrepresent to the consumers that its goods are those of the Plaintiff, which is damaging the reputation of the Plaintiff and amounts to passing off. Defendant has no justification for adopting the impugned marks and ought to be restrained by the Court. It is argued that this Court has in the past restrained parties from using Plaintiff's marks MANKIND/KIND/formatives of the mark KIND and reference is illustratively made to order dated 16.03.2022 in CS (COMM) 167/2022; order dated 07.08.2023 in CS (COMM) 188/2021, which was upheld by the Division Bench in FAO(OS) (COMM) 212/2023; and recent order dated 16.10.2025 in CS (COMM) 1120/2025.

35. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff and on perusal of the pleadings and documents, I am of the view that Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction. Balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiff and if interim injunction is not granted, irreparable harm and injury shall be caused to the Plaintiff.

36. Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of trademarks 'MANKIND' and 'KIND'/KIND formative marks in Classes 5, 10, 35 and 44 and has been using the marks in respect of pharmaceutical products etc. The figures of sales turnover and substantial amounts spent on promotion as also its brand endorsements etc., indicate the formidable reputation and goodwill built by the Plaintiff in the aforesaid marks. Defendant's adoption of impugned CS(COMM) 83/2026 Page 24 of 25 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/02/2026 at 20:38:19 trademark/tradename KINDMEDICS/ for similar/identical goods prima facie amounts to infringement of Plaintiff's registered trademarks MANKIND/KIND/KIND formative marks. Rival marks being deceptively similar and competing goods being similar/identical with common consumers and trade channels, there is every likelihood of confusion. In Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73, the Supreme Court has observed that public interest would support lesser degree of proof showing confusion similarity in case of trademark in respect of medicinal product as against other non-medicinal products. By adopting the impugned marks, Defendant has attempted to ride on the formidable reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiff, so as to mislead the consumers that its products have an association with the Plaintiff, thereby passing off its goods and violating Plaintiff's common law rights.

37. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing Defendant or anyone acting on its behalf are restrained from selling, offering for sale, supplying, advertising, using and/or directly or indirectly, dealing in any goods and/or services in India under the imugned trademark/trade name KINDMEDICS/ and/or any other trademark/trade name identical or deceptively similar to Plaintiff's registered trademarks MANKIND/ KIND/KIND formative marks, amounting to infringement and/or passing off.

38. Plaintiff shall comply with the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC within two weeks from today.

JYOTI SINGH, J JANUARY 29, 2026/S.Sharma CS(COMM) 83/2026 Page 25 of 25 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/02/2026 at 20:38:19

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders