Mankind Pharma CALDIKIND-P gets Delhi HC protection from lookalike CALIKA-P

The court observed;

“This seems to be a clear case of the defendants trying to come as near as possible to the plaintiff since there is no reason or occasion for them to have adopted the very same trade dress/ label/ artwork/ trade mark for their product 'CALIKA-P' syrup lest they want the members of the general public to believe that they and their products are emanating from the house of the plaintiff.”

“The defendants are clearly attempting to ride upon the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff's product by using the impugned trade dress and impugned trade mark for identical product.”

“Visually, there is no iota of difference inter se the trade dress/ label/ artwork/ trade mark for defendants’ 'CALIKA-P' syrup from that of the plaintiff. Therefore, the likelihood of confusion is more since the defendants are also dealing in the same products through the same trade channels and are targeting the same set of customers, in the present case, it is for the children. As the competing products are pharmaceutical preparations, it would be in interest of the general public if proactive steps are taken for restraining the defendants.”

"As the facts are pertaining to pharmaceutical products, in view of what is held in Cadila Health Care v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd AIR 2001 SC 1952, Heinz Italia & Anr. v. Dabur India Ltd. (2007) 6 SCC 1, Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Private Limited vs. Yashwantrao Mohite Krushna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana (2024) 2 SCC 577 and Brittania Industries Ltd. v. ITC India Ltd. (2021) SCC OnLine Del 1489, this Court is to be more cautious and stringent while dealing with matters relating to such pharmaceutical products since there is a likelihood of confusion arising in the minds of general public, if the competing trade dress, trade mark and design of the defendants are allowed to subsist and/ or continue."

"Therefore, exercising such due diligence and circumspection as per the settled law and in view of the factual matrix involved, especially as the defendants are guilty of blatantly adopting and using the impugned trade dress and design, the rights and interest of the plaintiff needs protection."

It further noted;

"The plaintiff has, thus, been able to make out a prima facie case with the balance of convenience for grant of an ad interim ex-parte injunction in their favour and against the defendants. In case the defendants are not restrained by way of an ad interim ex-parte injunction, there is a likelihood of the plaintiff suffering irreparable harm, loss, injury and prejudice which cannot be compensated for in terms of money."

Subsequently, the court held;

"Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, the defendants, their proprietors, partners or directors, as the case may be, their principal officers, servants, distributors, dealers and agents, and all others acting for and on behalf of the defendants are restrained from selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing with the goods and services under the impugned trade dress/ label and the impugned trade mark ‘CALIKA – P’ or any other trade dress/ label or trade mark which may be identical to or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trade dress/ label and trade mark ‘CALDIKIND’."

The case has been adjourned until January 27, 2025.

Besides, the court also granted the Mankind's request to appoint Local Commissioners to visit the defendants' premises to inspect and seize infringing materials related to the plaintiff’s trademark. The defendants were suspected of stocking counterfeit products. The court directed the commissioners to seize and seal the products, take necessary documentation, and report back within two weeks. The order also allowed video recording of the proceedings and granted commissioners police assistance if needed. The defendants were required to preserve the sealed products for future court orders.

To view the original judgement, click on the link below: