Delhi High Court: In a suit filed by Mankind Pharma Ltd. (‘Mankind’) against Sepkind Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (‘Sepkind’) seeking permanent injunction to restrain the infringement of their trade mark “MANKIND”, copyright, passing off, unfair trade practice, rendition of accounts, damages, etc., a Single Judge Bench of Mini Pushkarna, J. granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to Mankind and barred Sepkind from usage of the impugned trade mark.
Background
It was the case of Mankind that they adopted the trade mark “MANKIND” in 1986 and registered the same in various classes under the Nice Classification for various goods and services which meant that Mankind enjoyed a statutory protection over its trade mark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Mankind’s trade mark had also been declared as a ‘well-known’ trade mark by the Registrar of Trade Marks under Rule 124 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.
Mankind submitted that “KIND” had become a core component of their branding strategy and that its extensive use of “KIND” formative trade marks had established a strong reputation for quality in the pharmaceutical industry. It was also submitted that the original artistic work in the device marks was conceived, designed, and created for it and thus, it was the owner of the copyright subsisting in the said artistic work under the provisions of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957.
In the first week of December 2024, Mankind came across Sepkind’s website and was shocked to see that Sepkind was not only using the trade mark “SEPKIND” which was deceptively similar to Mankind’s well-known trade mark but also contained the prefix “KIND”. Sepkind was also using a deceptively similar logo and had copied the tag line of Mankind — “Serving Life” by using the tag line “Save your Life”.
Mankind filed a notice of opposition against two of Sepkind’s trade mark applications and subsequently, came to know that defendant 2 had acquired trade mark registration over the impugned trade mark “SEPKIND”.
Analysis and Decision
The Court said that Mankind had demonstrated a prima facie case for grant of injunction and if no ex-parte ad-interim injunction is granted, Mankind would suffer an irreparable loss. It was also stated that the balance of convenience was against Sepkind.
Accordingly, the Court barred Sepkind and its proprietors, partners, or directors from selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in any goods and services under the impugned trade mark “SEPKIND” or any other trade mark that may be identical or deceptively similar to Mankind’s trade mark or “KIND” formative trade marks and their artistic works.
The Court directed for the reply to be filed within four weeks and further, listed the matter on 16-04-2025.
In the application for appointment of Local Commissioner for the present matter, the Court appointed two Local Commissioners and permitted them to enter the premises of Sepkind to conduct search and seize the infringing products and materials related to the same. It was further directed that after seizing the infringing material, it shall be inventoried, sealed, and signed by the Local Commissioners in the presence of the parties and released on superdari to Sepkind as and when further directions are issued.
Further, while disposing of the application, the Court directed both the parties to comply with certain other directions regarding the appointment of the local commissioners and also directed for the local commissions to be executed within two weeks from the date of order.
[Mankind Pharma Limited v. Sepkind Pharma Private Limited, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8982, Decided on 06-12-2024]
Order by Justice Mini Pushkarna
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Plaintiff — Advocate Ankur Sangal, Advocate Ankit Arvind, Advocate Shashwat Rakshit, Advocate Kiratraj Sadana, Advocate Nidhi Pathak
For Defendants — None
Buy Trade Marks Act, 1999 HERE
