NEW DELHI
The Delhi High Court, in the case of Mankind Pharma Limited v. Novakind Bio Sciences Private Limited, observed and declared that the marks “Novakind” and “Mankind” are confusing when applied to pharmaceutical products.
The court solidified the interim injunction order against a company producing medicine with the suffix ‘Kind’ until the conclusion of a trademark infringement lawsuit initiated by Mankind Pharma.
Presided over by Justice C Hari Shankar, the court remarked that the ‘Kind’ suffix, which is not typical for pharmaceutical products, could easily mislead an average customer. Such a customer encountering the defendant’s ‘NOVAKIND’ product might mistake it for being part of the ‘KIND’ family of marks belonging to the plaintiff.
Furthermore, the court emphasised the potential association between the two marks in the minds of average consumers. Such perceived associations could lead to misconceptions.
The court also pointed out that this association possibility meets the criteria of infringement as described under Section 29(2)(b)10 of the Trade Marks Act. This is because the two marks are deceptively similar and are applied to identical goods.
Mankind Pharma Limited had brought a lawsuit against Novakind Bio Sciences Private Limited, accusing them of infringing on its registered trademark ‘Mankind’. Consequently, Mankind Pharma sought a permanent injunction to prevent Novakind from using the “Kind” mark in their medicine production.
The Coordinate bench had previously granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction, stopping Novakind from producing any pharmaceutical item bearing the ‘Kind’ suffix or in any way infringing on Mankind’s registered trademark.
However, the court underlined the importance of clarity, especially in the pharmaceutical sector, noting that even the slightest confusion regarding medicines, particularly prescription drugs, is unacceptable. The medications must be clearly distinguishable from each other.
The court also noted the plight of the less privileged, who often rely on more affordable clinics and doctors who might prescribe medicines based on the manufacturer. The potential for confusion in such cases is concerning, as a doctor or dispensing chemist might inadvertently prescribe or dispense the wrong medicine due to the similarity in naming.
Considering all facts and perspectives, the court stressed the potential confusion among professionals and emphasised the importance of distinct naming conventions for pharmaceutical products.