Trademark Win for Mankind: HC Rejects FLORASIS Over Similarity with FLORA

Justice Saurabh Banerjee, pronouncing judgment on May 14, 2025, clarified that registration of a trademark in other countries does not by itself entitle registration of the said mark in India.

The matter stemmed from an opposition filed by Mankind Pharma against Zhejiang Yige's trademark application for “FLORASIS” in Class 5 (pharmaceutical products), which the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks had earlier dismissed. Mankind appealed the decision under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Background

Mankind Pharma has held a registered trademark for “FLORA” since 2007, with usage dating back to 1995. The mark is used for pharmaceutical products including treatments for diarrhea and related ailments. In contrast, Zhejiang Yige applied for the “FLORASIS” mark in 2019 for products like sanitary towels and baby diapers, on a proposed-to-be-used basis.

Justice Banerjee noted;

“Allowing the said impugned mark ‘FLORASIS’ of the respondent no.1 to subsist under those circumstances, in all likelihood will amount to creating confusion, suspicion and deception in the minds of one and all as they will, thereafter, be available in the Indian market.”

The Court emphasized that deceptive similarity in healthcare products must be judged with heightened caution. It cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Cadila Healthcare Ltd. vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. to underline the principle that even slight confusion in pharmaceutical marks can endanger public health.

“Therefore, all/ any kind of creating confusion, suspicion and deception in the minds of the common people has to be avoided with utmost care and caution as the same could be severely detrimental to the public health and welfare.”

The court observed;

“The impugned mark ‘FLORASIS’ of the respondent no.1 is visually, structurally and phonetically similar to the appellant’s registered trademark ‘FLORA’ and is likely to be perceived as yet another variant emanating from the appellant and to be falsely associated with the mark(s) of the appellant.”

On Foreign Registration

Zhejiang Yige had argued that “FLORASIS” was already registered in several other countries and included a Mandarin script component. The court, however, dismissed the relevance of international use;

“Registration of a mark in another jurisdiction does not entitle a person/ entity for registration of the same in India.”

“In India, merely adding a mandarin character cannot add any distinctiveness thereto for being granted registration, and that too qua a pharmaceutical product, especially, when the said character cannot be deciphered by the general public and/ or the members of trade.”

Final Ruling

The Court concluded;

"The adoption of the impugned mark ‘FLORASIS’ by the respondent no.1 by merely adding the suffix ‘SIS’ to the already registered trademark ‘FLORA’, which is the dominant/ distinguishing feature thereof is itself, under the existing circumstances, not sufficient."

“Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 29.05.2023 passed by the respondent no.2 is set aside. The Registrar of Trade Marks is directed to remove the entry pertaining to application bearing no.4330041 of the respondent no.1 for the mark ‘FLORASIS’ in Class 5 from the Register of Trade Marks forthwith.”

“The appellant herein being a prior user as also a registered proprietor of the trademark ‘FLORA’ in India and also a ‘person aggrieved’, is entitled to invoke the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 91 of the TM Act."

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