The ruling was delivered on September 24, 2025, by Justice Tejas Karia, who observed that Mankind Pharma had established substantial goodwill and reputation in its trademarks, which include some marks declared as “well-known.” The judge held that Biodiscovery Lifesciences’ conduct was prima facie dishonest and intended to ride upon Mankind Pharma’s reputation.
Mankind Pharma, a major pharmaceutical company with worldwide operations, approached the High Court alleging that Biodiscovery Lifesciences was using marks deceptively similar to its own. Mankind submitted that it holds registrations of the marks MANKIND, KIND, FENDIKIND, ZENKIND, and DIZIKIND across multiple classes in India and abroad. The company stated that in August 2025, it discovered Biodiscovery selling products under the marks FENKIND, DICKIND, LONOKIND, and CHIMOKIND on its website and e-commerce platforms such as 1mg and Medibuddy.
Mankind argued that the case was one of “triple identity”—where the marks, the product category, and the customer base were all identical—making confusion inevitable. It claimed that Biodiscovery’s actions constituted clear infringement and passing off. Mankind maintained that the balance of convenience lay in its favour and that failure to restrain Biodiscovery would cause irreparable damage to its goodwill.
At this interim stage, Biodiscovery Lifesciences has not yet filed its detailed response. The court has issued notice and given the company time to file its reply before the next hearing.
Justice Karia found that Mankind Pharma had proved long and continuous use of its marks and the reputation acquired by them. He noted that the marks used by Biodiscovery—FENKIND, DICKIND, LONOKIND, and CHIMOKIND—were deceptively similar to Mankind Pharma’s trademarks and were “indistinguishable” from them. Such use, the court said, was likely to mislead consumers and dilute Mankind Pharma’s brand identity.
The High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining Biodiscovery Lifesciences from manufacturing, selling, or advertising any products under the impugned marks until the next hearing.
The order stated:
"Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, the Defendant, its directors, assignees in business, its associates, affiliates, franchisees, licensees, distributors, dealers, stockists, retailers, agents, and all others acting for or on its behalf, are restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in medicinal, pharmaceutical, consumer healthcare and wellness products under the Impugned Marks, 'DICKIND', 'LONOKIND', 'FENKIND' and 'CHIMOKIND' or any other Trade Mark / Label that may be identical / deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's Trade Marks, 'MANKIND', 'KIND', 'FENDIKIND', 'ZENKIND' and 'DIZIKIND', amounting to infringement and / or passing off of the Plaintiff's Trade Marks."
To view the original order, click on the link below:
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.