Citation	FAO(OS) (COMM) 191/2018, CM APPL. 34275/2018 & CM APPL. 53909/2023
Court	High Court of Delhi
Decided on	9 August 2024
Judges	Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yashwant Varma, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravinder Dudeja
Parties	Plaintiff: Mankind Pharma Ltd Defendant: Chandra Mani Tiwari & Anr

 

Introduction 

The case of Mankind Pharma Ltd vs Chandra Mani Tiwari & Anr was adjudicated by the High Court of Delhi on 09 August 2024. The appellant, Mankind Pharma Ltd, challenged an order from 06 July 2018 that denied their request for a temporary injunction against the respondents, who were using the trade name “MERCYKIND PHARMACEUTICAL PRIVATE LIMITED.”

Mankind Pharma Ltd claimed that it adopted the trademark “MANKIND” in 1986, with efforts to register it starting in 1995. The company asserted its prominence in the pharmaceutical sector, having filed multiple trademarks and achieving significant revenue figures. The dispute centers around the potential confusion in the market due to the similarity in the trade names, particularly concerning the registration and perceived well-known status of Mankind’s trademark.

The case emphasized the role of similarity in trade names and the likelihood of public confusion, which is crucial for assessing trademark disputes, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry where the stakes involve public health and safety. The Court acknowledged prior decisions on trademark comparisons, noting the necessity of evaluating how an average consumer perceives the marks. Ultimately, the Court set aside the earlier order denying the temporary injunction, directing a fresh consideration of the request, thus indicating a further evaluation of the merits of the case in light of ongoing developments.

 

Facts of the Case

Mankind Pharma Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellant”) is a well-established player in the pharmaceutical market, claiming to have adopted the trademark “MANKIND” in 1986. Subsequent to its adoption, the Appellant registered the trademark in Class 05 in 1995, claiming to have been using it since its initial adoption. The Appellant, boasting revenues exceeding INR 4000 crores, has established itself as a significant manufacturer with a portfolio that includes 157 trademark registrations featuring the suffix “KIND.”

 

The dispute arose when Chandra Mani Tiwari & Anr (hereinafter referred to as “the Respondents”), who previously worked as Marketing Manager for the Appellant, initiated a company titled “MERCYKIND PHARMACEUTICAL PRIVATE LIMITED” shortly after leaving the Appellant’s employment. The Respondents filed for registration of the trademark “MERCYKIND PHARMACEUTICAL” on January 20, 2017, after which they began using the trade name on various products.

 

The Appellant instituted a suit seeking a temporary injunction against the Respondents to restrain them from using the trade name “MERCYKIND PHARMACEUTICAL,” arguing that it resulted in confusion and deceit among consumers, potentially damaging their established trademark reputation.

Procedural History

The case was initiated by the Appellant in response to a refusal by the learned Single Judge in a prior ruling dated July 6, 2018. The Appellant contended that their application for a temporary injunction was unjustly denied. The ruling from the learned Single Judge provided no significant findings regarding the likelihood of confusion between the parties’ trademarks due to an absence of arguments presented by the Appellant during the prior hearing.

 

Issues

1. Trademark differentiation and likelihood of confusion: Whether the Respondents’ use of the name “MERCYKIND” is likely to confuse consumers or deceive the public, infringing upon the Appellant’s trademark rights.

 

2. Nature of trademark use in pharmaceuticals: Whether the usage of the suffix “KIND” constitutes a violation given the context of its adoption considering the specialized nature of pharmaceuticals, and how this affects trademark law interpretation.

 

3. Temporary injunction validity: Whether the refusal for a temporary injunction by the Single Judge was justified, especially considering the established reputation of the Appellant’s trademark.

 

Arguments

For the Appellant:

– The Appellant asserted that the trademark “MANKIND” is well-known, having garnered reputation and association among the public for a significant period. Utilizing “MERCYKIND” is likely to lead to confusion regarding the origin and source of the Respondents’ goods.

 

– In their appeal, the Appellant highlighted the previous worker’s (the Respondent’s) dishonesty regarding the formation of a competing company and the trademark registration. The quick succession of actions following their departure from the Appellant’s company indicates an intention to exploit the goodwill associated with “MANKIND.”

 

– They contended that the learned Single Judge failed to take into account key principles regarding trademark law and consumer perception, particularly in the pharmaceutical sector, where distinctions in branding are crucial for public health and safety.

 

For the Respondents:

– The Respondents argued that their trade name did not infringe on the Appellant’s trademark. They contended that they used “MERCYKIND” in a manner that did not serve as a trademark but rather as a corporate name, thus immune to claims of trade mark infringement.

 

– The Respondents also indicated that the products marketed under their company bore different names (e.g., “MERCYMOX,” “MERCYCOUGH”) which illustrated that the products themselves were not branded as “MERCYKIND,” thus, minimizing the possibility of confusion.

 

– They urged the court to view the circumstances surrounding trademark registration through the lens of the Trademark Registry’s declarations regarding “MANKIND” status as a well-known trademark, wherein the timing and jurisdiction of such decisions can influence legal arguments.

 

Findings

The Court analyzed the submissions from both parties and considered the precedents set in similar cases. The judges recognized that pharmaceutical products typically categorized into Over The Counter (OTC) and prescribed drugs, often do not rely predominantly upon the manufacturer’s name for identification. Healthcare practitioners commonly prescribe using generic terms rather than brand names.

 

1. Nature of Trademark Use: The judges debated the nature of use of the “MERCYKIND” name and concluded that the inclusion of “KIND” in different forms would not automatically denote a significant risk of confusion. The judge emphasized that merely having a related name does not infringe if there’s sufficient distinction in the public’s perception between the two brands.

 

2. Injunction Denial: The Single Judge’s ruling was upheld concerning the injunction as they noted that the Appellant had not fully elucidated its claims regarding the potential for confusion, especially in relation to the defendant’s position as a corporate entity rather than solely functioning under the name “MERCYKIND.”

 

3. Consideration of Changing Circumstances: During the course of the appeal, it was noted that the Respondents made significant alterations to their product logo and presentation. Such changes called for a reevaluation of the core arguments regarding the likelihood of confusion, which warranted fresh consideration of the case.

 

Conclusion and Order

The High Court set aside the prior ruling of the Single Judge and allowed the Appellant’s appeal for a reconsideration of the application for a temporary injunction. The judges directed that the matter be revisited expeditiously, keeping the pending nature of other cases in mind, thereby ensuring a balance in judicial prioritization.

 

The ruling established a crucial viewpoint concerning the distinctive application of trademarks in the pharmaceutical industry, emphasizing the need for brands to demonstrate clear separation to avoid public confusion, given the serious implications on public health and consumer trust.

 

Implications

This case signifies a critical decision surrounding trademark law, especially within the pharmaceutical domain. It highlights the intricate balance between protecting established trademarks and allowing emerging companies to function without undue restrictions. The ruling places a spotlight on the necessity for businesses to clearly distinguish their branding, particularly when the potential for consumer confusion can have broad implications beyond mere economic competition, potentially affecting public well-being.

 

Future Considerations

Moving forward, businesses in the pharmaceutical sector must heed the implications of this ruling. They must not only ensure adequate trademark registration but also be vigilant about maintaining distinctiveness in branding to prevent infringement claims. The evolving approach to trademark enforcement, especially in the light of the critical scrutiny brought on by this case, may influence future litigations and corporate strategies within a burgeoning industry.