Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.33 seconds)
Mankind Pharma Ltd. 208, Okhla ... vs Gurinder Singh, 205, Cedar Ansal ... on 2 May, 2024 cites

Bigtree Entertainment Pvt Ltd vs Brain Seed Sportainment Pvt Ltd & Anr. on 13 December, 2017

6. In addressing Petitioner's objection to the Impugned registered mark, we must first note the established status and historical use of the Petitioner's "MANKIND" and the 'KIND' family of trademarks. Since its adoption in 1986, the "MANKIND" mark has been extensively used by the Petitioner, a leading pharmaceutical company, and is part of an extensive portfolio that includes over 300 related trademarks. This portfolio spans all 45 classes, emphasizing the significant market presence and value these marks have acquired, evidenced by an impressive turnover of approximately Rs. 1968 crores from products under the "KIND" family between April 2019 and 2020. Moreover, "MANKIND" has been recognised as a well-known trademark, published in the trademark Journal no. 1978 dated 14th December 2020. Thus, the strength of the mark extends beyond its primary 6 Bigtree Entertainment Pvt Ltd vs Brain Seed Sportainment Pvt Ltd & Anr., in CS (COMM) 327/2016 P.P. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. vs P.P. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2010) ILR 2 DEL 165 Reliance Industries Ltd. vs C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 257/2022 Page 5 of 9 This is a digitally signed order.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 8 - M Gupta - Full Document

Mankind Pharma Ltd vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd And Ors on 22 January, 2015

12. It would be relevant to refer to decision of this Court in Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.8 which effectively highlights the strong protection awarded to the Petitioner's use of the word "KIND" within its trademarks. The Court recognized that although "KIND" does not inherently relate to pharmaceutical products, the Petitioner has established significant goodwill and market presence since first using "MANKIND" in 1986 and subsequently "METROKIND' in 2003. These actions have developed a distinctive family of marks where "KIND" serves as a central element. This judgment has emphasized that the Petitioner, as the prior user, is entitled to heightened protection against any infringing use that copies the essential or predominant parts of its trademark, affirming the Petitioner's exclusive rights over the "KIND" component within the pharmaceutical industry.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 4 - I Kaur - Full Document

P.P. Jewellers Pvt Ltd vs P.P. Buildwell Pvt Ltd on 21 September, 2022

6. In addressing Petitioner's objection to the Impugned registered mark, we must first note the established status and historical use of the Petitioner's "MANKIND" and the 'KIND' family of trademarks. Since its adoption in 1986, the "MANKIND" mark has been extensively used by the Petitioner, a leading pharmaceutical company, and is part of an extensive portfolio that includes over 300 related trademarks. This portfolio spans all 45 classes, emphasizing the significant market presence and value these marks have acquired, evidenced by an impressive turnover of approximately Rs. 1968 crores from products under the "KIND" family between April 2019 and 2020. Moreover, "MANKIND" has been recognised as a well-known trademark, published in the trademark Journal no. 1978 dated 14th December 2020. Thus, the strength of the mark extends beyond its primary 6 Bigtree Entertainment Pvt Ltd vs Brain Seed Sportainment Pvt Ltd & Anr., in CS (COMM) 327/2016 P.P. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. vs P.P. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2010) ILR 2 DEL 165 Reliance Industries Ltd. vs C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 257/2022 Page 5 of 9 This is a digitally signed order.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document
1