Mankind Pharma Limited v. Manking Pharmaceutical Private Limited & Anr.

CS(COMM) 337/2024, I.A. 9226/2024 & I.A. 9231/2024

The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Mankind Pharma Limited against Manking Pharmaceutical Private Limited. The court found a prima facie case based on the phonetic similarity between the 'MANKIND' mark and the defendant's adopted variations, as well as the use of a deceptively similar logo device. Furthermore, the plaintiff highlighted suspicious corporate links, suggesting the defendant was incorporated by an ex-employee to dishonestly adopt the protected brand identity.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 337/2024, I.A. 9226/2024 & I.A. 9231/2024
Decision Date
8 May 2024

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court - Orders. Understanding the court's reasoning in Mankind Pharma Limited vs Manking Pharmaceutical Private Limited & Anr. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentCS(COMM) 197/2022 & I.A. Nos. 4959/2022, 4960/2022, 21819/2022 & 4172/2023

Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.vsWin Health Pharma Through Its Proprietor Mr. Sanjay Seth & Anr.

The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiffs to challenge the validity of the defendant's registered trademarks, 'WIN HEALTH PHARMA,' under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act. The core dispute revolves around prior use rights, as the plaintiff claims established goodwill with marks like 'WIN-HEALTHCARE' since 2005, while the defendant holds registrations for similar names. Given that both parties presented substantial arguments regarding priority and similarity, the court found prima facie merit in the plaintiffs' plea of invalidity.

patentC.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 20/2021

Saint Gobain Abrasives IncvsController Of Patents

The appellant challenged the Assistant Controller's order rejecting their patent application, which cited three pieces of prior art (D1, D2, D3) as making the invention obvious. The court found that the impugned order failed to provide a useful analysis of how the combination of prior arts led to the conclusion of obviousness. Furthermore, the court noted the rejection of amendments lacked proper discussion.

patentCS(COMM) 559/2023

M/S Gufic Biosciences LimitedvsM/S Saarvasri Herbs Private Limited And Ors

The Delhi High Court approved an amicable settlement between the Plaintiff, M/S Gufic Biosciences Limited, and Defendant No. 1, M/S Saarvasri Herbs Private Limited. Under the settlement, Defendant No. 1 acknowledged the exclusive rights to the 'SALLAKI' trademark and agreed to permanently cease using any similar marks or packaging. Furthermore, the court granted the Plaintiff permission to delete Defendants 2 and 3 from the suit, allowing them to pursue separate legal actions against those parties.

patentCS (COMM) 201/2017

Shogun Organics Ltd.vsGaur Hari Guchhait & Ors.

Shogun Organics Ltd. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of its patent (IN-236630) related to the manufacturing process of d-trans Allethrin, an active ingredient in mosquito repellents. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants were using the patented process despite having different licenses. The court found the patent valid and ruled in favor of the Plaintiff.

patent(T)OP(TM)/174/2023

Mankind Pharma Limitedvs4 Square Pharmaceuticals Of ... and The Registrar of Trade Marks

The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by Mankind Pharma Limited seeking the removal of Trademark No. 1803072 (XYDI). The court noted that the last registration for this trademark had expired on April 6, 2019. Since the underlying issue—the status of the mark's validity—had changed, the petition was deemed infructuous. Mankind Pharma was granted leave to re-apply should the trademark be restored.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Dealing with a patent challenge?

Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.

Talk to our patent team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call