Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Gurinder Singh

C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 257/2022

The Delhi High Court allowed Mankind Pharma Ltd.'s petition seeking the cancellation of a competing trademark registered by Gurinder Singh. The court held that due to Mankind's long-standing use and established goodwill, its marks (including 'MANKIND' and the 'KIND' family) had acquired well-known status. Consequently, the registration of the impugned mark was deemed violative of Sections 11(1) and 11(2) of the Trademarks Act, leading to its removal from the register.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 257/2022
Judge(s)
Sanjeev Narula

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Delhi High Court - Orders. Understanding the court's reasoning in Mankind Pharma Ltd. vs Gurinder Singh is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkCS(COMM) 326/2022

Rajesh Chugh Kart Amir Chand And Sons Huf & Anr.vsMr Nazim Khan Proprietor Partner Nazim S Kathi Roll & Ors.

The Delhi High Court dismissed an interim application filed by the defendant, Mr. Nazim Khan, seeking court approval for a proposed trademark design. The Court found that despite some adherence to previous consent terms regarding font size and prominence, the new design still spotlighted 'NAZIM'S' on a standalone basis, violating the spirit of the earlier agreement. Consequently, the application was rejected, reinforcing the importance of strict compliance with court-mandated usage restrictions during litigation.

trademarkFAO(OS) (COMM) 67/2016

M/S P K Overseas Pvt.Ltd.vsM/S Bhagwati Lecto Vegetarians Exports

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, overturning a single judge's decision that had vacated an interim injunction. The court ruled in favor of M/S P K Overseas Pvt.Ltd., confirming the initial injunction against M/S Bhagwati Lecto Vegetarians Exports. The judgment emphasized that for passing off claims involving composite marks like 'India Salaam', both components must be considered, and established sales figures justified a prima facie case of reputation.

trademarkCMA(TM) No. 25 of 2025

Gibraltar (Uk) LimitedvsThe Registrar Of Trade Marks

Gibraltar (Uk) Limited appealed the rejection of its trademark application for 'PROMAX' under Class 31, arguing that it was a prior user and should be accepted despite objections based on similarity to existing marks. The Madras High Court upheld the Registrar's decision, finding that the appellant’s mark was deceptively similar to cited marks already registered in the same class. The court emphasized that registering the single word 'PROMAX' would create an undue monopoly over a common formative mark.

trademarkWPO/140/2024

Nababuddin AhmedvsThe Registrar Of Trademarks Kolkata And Anr

The Calcutta High Court ruled in favor of Nababuddin Ahmed, setting aside the unauthorized removal of his registered trademark. The court held that merely uploading a notice on an official website does not constitute valid service under Section 25 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Since the petitioner was not given individual notice and opportunity to rectify defects, the administrative action taken by the Registrar was deemed vitiated.

trademarkC.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 65/2021

Laans Portfolios Pvt LtdvsThe Registrar Of Trade Marks

The Delhi High Court allowed Laans Portfolios Pvt Ltd's appeal against an order that deemed its trademark application 'VEGAZVA' abandoned. The core issue was a procedural discrepancy where the Registrar failed to consider the Appellant's filed counter-statement despite it being on record for one of the identical opposition filings. Recognizing this clerical error and the unfairness to the applicant, the Court set aside the abandonment order, restored the application, and directed the Registry to process the registration.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Facing a trademark dispute?

Arctic's TM litigation team handles ~120 trademark matters per year across India, EU, and UK. From oppositions to infringement actions, we build winning arguments from precedent.

Talk to our TM 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 trademark matter?

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

Get a Strategy Call