The ruling was delivered by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, who modified an earlier ex-parte ad-interim injunction issued on July 24, 2025, to ensure that the restraint applied only to the impugned trade dress and not to the product name itself.
Mankind Pharma had approached the Delhi High Court alleging that Nectar Biopharma was marketing its product in packaging (trade dress) that closely resembled Mankind’s emergency contraceptive pill “UNWANTED-72.” Mankind argued that such similarity in trade dress could mislead consumers into believing the two products were connected, thereby infringing upon its trademark rights and goodwill.
On July 24, 2025, the Court had issued an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, restraining Nectar Biopharma not only from using the disputed trade dress but also from using the name “MISTAKE-72.”
At the September 15 hearing, counsel for Mankind Pharma clarified that the company was not objecting to Nectar Biopharma’s use of the mark “MISTAKE-72.” Instead, the grievance was focused solely on the trade dress, which Mankind claimed was deceptively similar to its own product “UNWANTED-72.”
Mankind therefore, urged the Court to modify its earlier order so that the injunction would be restricted only to the packaging, while leaving Nectar Biopharma free to continue with its brand name.
On behalf of Nectar Biopharma, counsel welcomed the clarification made by Mankind Pharma. Nectar Biopharma pointed out that this was one of the key pleas in its application to vacate the July 24 injunction. With Mankind conceding that the mark “MISTAKE-72” could continue to be used, Nectar Biopharma requested the Court to record this modification and proceed with the matter on the already scheduled hearing dates.
On behalf of Nectar Biopharma, counsel welcomed the clarification made by Mankind Pharma. Nectar Biopharma pointed out that this was one of the key pleas in its application to vacate the July 24 injunction. With Mankind conceding that the mark “MISTAKE-72” could continue to be used, Nectar Biopharma requested the Court to record this modification and proceed with the matter on the already scheduled hearing dates.
After hearing both sides, Justice Arora agreed that the earlier injunction order required modification in light of Mankind Pharma’s clarification. The Court deleted the reference to Nectar Biopharma’s mark “MISTAKE-72” from paragraph 29 of the July 24 order.
The operative part of the modified order now reads as follows:
“Accordingly, Mankind Pharma has made out a prima facie case for grant of an ad-interim ex-parte injunction. Nectar Biopharma and their proprietors, partners or directors, and all others acting for and on behalf of Nectar Biopharma, shall stand restrained from selling, offering for sale, advertising, retailing, distributing, directly or indirectly dealing in any products under the impugned trade-dress and/or any other trademark or trade-dress which is identical or deceptively similar to Mankind Pharma's trademark/trade-dress ‘UNWANTED-72’ or any other trademark or trade-dress which is identical or deceptively similar to Mankind Pharma's mark.”
The Court thus clarified that the words “the impugned mark ‘MISTAKE-72’ and” are deleted from the earlier injunction order.
The Court has directed Mankind Pharma to file its reply to Nectar Biopharma’s application within four weeks, with a rejoinder to follow within four weeks thereafter. The matter is scheduled to be taken up before the Joint Registrar on November 13, 2025, and listed for hearing before the Court on December 4, 2025.
To view the official order, click 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.