Introduction

In the dynamic world of pharmaceuticals, protecting intellectual property is crucial for companies seeking to establish their brand identity and market presence. Trademark law serves as a vital tool in this endeavour. A recent case from the Delhi High Court, Mankind Pharma Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 54/2024, highlights key aspects of trademark law, specifically concerning the likelihood of confusion, family of marks, and the necessity of demonstrating actual use in the marketplace. This case offers valuable insights for businesses navigating the complex landscape of trademark applications. The case revolves around Mankind Pharma Limited's application for the trademark “PETKIND” in Class 5, encompassing pharmaceutical, medicinal, and veterinary products. Mankind filed its application (Application No. 5157441) on October 1, 2021, seeking to capitalize on the growing demand for veterinary and health-related products. However, the application faced challenges due to an earlier pending trademark application for “PETKIND PHARMA” submitted by Wellford Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. in December 2020 (Application No. 4794368). The initial examination, citing Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, led to a refusal of Mankind's application. The examiner argued that the similarity between the two marks could create confusion among consumers, especially since both trademarks belonged to the same Class 5 category. Mankind appealed this decision, prompting a detailed analysis from the High Court of Delhi.

Details of the mark of Mankind.

Details of the mark of Wellford Pharmaceuticals.

Key Legal Issues

The central issues of the appeal rested on two critical points:

·       Was the refusal of Mankind’s application justified solely based on the existence of an earlier pending mark without demonstrating a concrete likelihood of confusion?

·       Did Mankind’s established reputation within a family of “KIND” marks mitigate the risk of confusion with the cited trademark?

Mankind’s Arguments

Mankind Pharma’s case was built on several compelling arguments. They showcased an extensive portfolio of over 210 registrations within the “KIND” family of marks in Class 5, boasting substantial sales and long-standing market presence since 1986. Their trademark “MANKIND” was recognized as a well-known mark, effectively establishing the distinctiveness of the “KIND” suffix in pharmaceuticals and veterinary goods. Mankind further contended that the cited trademark, being on a proposed-to-be-used basis, lacked any evidence of actual use in the marketplace. Thus, they argued that any confusion arising among consumers stemmed primarily from Wellford's attempt to adopt a mark similar to an established brand rather than from Mankind’s branding efforts. They supported their position with prior court precedents emphasizing their rights in the “KIND” family of marks, illustrating a well-founded claim to the trademark.

Respondent’s Arguments

Conversely, the Registrar of Trade Marks upheld the examiner's decision, asserting that the refusal was well-founded on legal grounds. They maintained that the structural and phonetic similarities between “PETKIND” and “PETKIND PHARMA”, coupled with the overlapping market channels and consumer bases, warranted concern regarding potential confusion. The respondent emphasized that the earlier application was pending and that the mere similarity of goods fell within the ambit of Section 11(1) considerations.

To know more about this, you can follow the below link:

Court’s Analysis

The Delhi High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Justice Mr. Tejas Karia, provided clarity on the interpretation of Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, which requires not only the examination of mark similarity but also a thorough assessment of the likelihood of confusion. The Court underscored that simply being in the same class is not determinative; the true test is whether consumers might logically associate the two trademarks. The Court acknowledged Mankind’s extensive “KIND” family of marks and their reputation in the marketplace, which further contributed to their argument. Importantly, the Court emphasized that the cited mark’s proposed-to-be-used status indicated a lack of actual use, diminishing the validity of concerns about potential confusion. The Court concluded that the mere existence of the earlier pending application did not suffice to uphold the refusal of Mankind’s application. Therefore, it granted the appeal, allowing “PETKIND” to proceed to advertisement. The court directed that any opposition to the trademark should be assessed on its merits, free from influences stemming from the initial refusal.

Directions

The High Court's decision came with a clear disposition:

·       The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order of March 15, 2024, was set aside.

·       The application “PETKIND” was directed to proceed for advertisement within two months.

·       Any future opposition proceedings would be determined independently based on their merit.

Significance of the Decision

This case underscores the importance of demonstrating actual use when invoking the likelihood of confusion claims under Section 11(1). The decision reaffirms that established trademarks and prior reputation can provide critical advantages in overcoming rejection based on similar pending applications particularly those that are not actively used in the market.

Practical Implications for Businesses

Businesses aiming to protect their trademarks should take several key takeaways from this decision:

·       Building a Strong Brand Portfolio: Establishing a family of marks can significantly enhance a company’s position when contesting similar mark applications.

·       Demonstrating Use: Companies must prioritize actual use of trademarks in commerce, as this can fundamentally support claims against potential confusion.

·      Fair Opposition Practices: Any opposition to a trademark application should be based on solid evidence, rather than merely on existing registrations, to withstand judicial scrutiny.

Conclusion

The Mankind Pharma Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks case highlights the intricate balance that trademark law seeks to achieve between protecting established marks and enabling the market to expand with new entrants. By emphasizing the necessity for clear evidence of confusion, alongside established reputations, this case reinforces the concept that a well-timed appeal, grounded in solid evidence and legal precedent, can lead to favourable outcomes. As the pharmaceutical industry continues to evolve, understanding and navigating trademark law remains an essential endeavour for businesses to protect their intellectual property effectively.