Delhi HC Grants Interim Relief to Mankind, Restrains AquaKind Labs from Using 'KIND' in Trademark
New Delhi: In relief to Mankind Pharma, the Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte interim injunction restraining AquaKind Labs LLP from using the "KIND" suffix in their trade name "Aquakind."
This ruling followed a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by Mankind Pharma Limited, which claimed that AquaKind Labs' use of the name was deceptively similar to its registered trademark "MANKIND," potentially causing confusion in the pharmaceutical market.
Mankind filed a lawsuit in the Delhi High Court, seeking to restrain AQUAKIND Labs LLP from using its trade name "AQUAKIND," claiming it infringes on Mankind Pharma’s registered trademarks. The plaintiff, represented by Senior Advocate Chander M. Lail and a team of lawyers, argued that the defendants' use of "AQUAKIND" is not only visually and phonetically similar to the well-known "MANKIND" trademark but also threatens to cause confusion in the pharmaceutical market.
The plaintiff has been using the "MANKIND" trademark since 1986, first under the name 'Mankind Pharma' and later as Mankind Pharma Limited, incorporated in 1991. Over the years, the company has developed a significant portfolio of trademarks incorporating the "KIND" suffix, which has become synonymous with high-quality pharmaceutical products. Mankind Pharma holds registrations for over 300 trademarks with the "KIND" suffix, including names such as HEPAKIND, GLYKIND, and METROKIND, establishing a solid market presence.
The dispute arose when Mankind Pharma discovered that AQUAKIND Labs had started using the trademark "AQUAKIND" for pharmaceutical products, which the plaintiff claims is deceptively similar to its own trademark. The plaintiff argued that this similarity is likely to cause confusion among consumers, especially since both companies operate in the same pharmaceutical space.
Mankind Pharma’s lawsuit also highlighted the malicious intent behind the defendants' adoption of "AQUAKIND." The company asserted that the use of a similar name is a deliberate attempt by the defendants to capitalize on the goodwill associated with "MANKIND" and "KIND." Furthermore, the plaintiff emphasized that such confusion in the pharmaceutical industry could have harmful consequences, as incorrect associations between similar products could jeopardize consumer safety.
As part of the case, Mankind Pharma sought an injunction to prevent the defendants from using the "AQUAKIND" trademark and is also requesting damages and the rendition of accounts for the alleged infringement.
Examining the case, the court observed that the plaintiff, Mankind Pharma, had successfully demonstrated a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction. The court further noted that if no ex parte ad interim injunction were issued, the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm. The balance of convenience, according to the court, clearly tilted in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants. It observed;
“The plaintiff has demonstrated a prima facie case for grant of injunction and, in case, no ex parte ad interim injunction is granted, the plaintiff will suffer an irreparable loss. Further, balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff, and against the defendants.”
In its order, the court prohibited the defendants—AQUAKIND Labs LLP and its affiliates—from selling, advertising, or dealing in any goods or services under the trade name "AQUAKIND" or any trademark that could be confused with Mankind Pharma’s registered trademarks, "MANKIND" and its related "KIND" variants. It noted;
“Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, the defendants, their proprietors, partners or directors, as the case may be, its principal officers, servants, distributors, dealers and agents, and all others acting for and on behalf of the defendants, are restrained m selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing 4fiyf gqOds and services under the impugned trade mark/ trade name "AQUAKIND"/ "AQUAKIND LABS LLP' and or any other trade mark/trade name as may be identical to or deceptively similar with the plaintiff's registered trademarks "MANKIND" and/ or "KIND" formative trademarks and their variants thereof, so as to cause infringement as well as passing off of the plaintiff s trademarks.”
Additionally, the court addressed the need for evidence preservation and appointed two Local Commissioners to inspect the defendants’ premises. These commissioners are tasked with seizing any infringing products and gathering financial records that relate to the sale of these products.
The case has been scheduled for further proceedings in December 2024, with a final hearing set for March 2025.
To view the original judgement, click on the link below:
