Delhi High Court: An appeal was filed by Mankind Pharma Limited (plaintiff) challenging the Single Judge’s order dated 06-07-2018, which was refused to grant a temporary injunction to restrain the respondent from using the trade name “Mercykind Pharmaceuticals Private Limited”. A division bench of Yashwant Varma and Davinder Dudeja, JJ., set aside the impugned order, finding that the refusal to grant an injunction was erroneous due to the likelihood of consumer confusion between “Mankind” and “Mercykind,” and directed a fresh consideration of the injunction application, with all parties’ rights and contentions preserved and expedited proceedings scheduled for 27-08-2024.
Mankind Pharma Ltd., the appellant/ plaintiff, is a well-established pharmaceutical company that holds registrations for the mark “MANKIND” across various classes. It was alleged that the respondent/defendant was initially working with the appellant as a Marketing Manager till he left their employment and initiated the process for incorporation of a company under the corporate name “MERCYKIND PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED” which came to be incorporated on 17-01-2015. The respondent is stated to have applied for registration of the trademark “MERCYKIND PHARMACEUTICAL” and once it started using the trade name “MERCYKIND” on its packaging that led to the institution of the suit before the present Court.
The Court was informed during the pendency of the present appeal, the respondent made significant changes both in its logo and get up of products which are being marketed by it, thus, the Court noted that these and other issues which arise would clearly merit consideration afresh by the Single Judge.
Thus, the Court held that the Single Judge’s order from 06-07-2018 needed to be revisited being influenced by the fact that significant changes had been made by the defendant in its logo and product get-up during the appeal’s pendency. The Court also acknowledged that these changes, along with other relevant issues, required fresh consideration.
Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, and the order was set aside. The Court directed that the application for a temporary injunction be reconsidered by the Single Judge with due expedition.
[Mankind Pharma Limited v. Chandra Mani Tiwari, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5491, decided on 09-08-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv. and Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ankur Sangal, Mr. Ankit Arvind, Mr. Kiratraj Sadana, Ms. Nidhi Pathak, Advocates for appellant
Mr. Sanyat Lodha, Ms. Sanjana Saddy, Advocate for respondent