Delhi HC Reinforces “Family-of-Marks” Protection: Exclusive Rights Over the Suffix “KIND” in Pharmaceutical & Allied Classes

1. Introduction

Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Ram Kumar (M/s Dr. Kumars Pharmaceuticals) (2025 DHC 7142) concerns a rectification petition brought under section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petitioner, Mankind Pharma Ltd. (“Mankind”), is a well-known Indian pharmaceutical company whose house mark “MANKIND” (and the broader “KIND” family of marks) has been in use since 1986 and is registered in all 45 classes. The respondent, Ram Kumar trading as Dr. Kumars Pharmaceuticals (“respondent”), owns the mark “UNKIND” (Application No. 1711563, class 35, user claim 2006). Upon discovering the registration, Mankind sought cancellation on grounds of:

Deceptive similarity and likelihood of confusion (section 11).
Non-use for a continuous period exceeding five years (section 47).
Bad-faith adoption and absence of bona fide intent.

The Delhi High Court, per Justice Tejas Karia, allowed the petition, ordered removal of “UNKIND” from the register, and in doing so articulated an important clarification of the “family-of-marks” doctrine in Indian trade-mark law, especially for the distinctive suffix “KIND” in pharma and allied fields.

2. Summary of the Judgment

1. The Court treated the matter ex parte owing to the respondent’s persistent non-appearance despite service (including electronic/WhatsApp service).
2. After reviewing Mankind’s registrations, sales figures (₹3525.56 crores overall in 2017; ₹1300 crores attributable to “KIND” sub-brands) and its well-known mark status under Rule 124, the Court held that:

The suffix “KIND” has acquired distinctiveness in the pharma sector exclusively in favour of Mankind.
“UNKIND” is deceptively and confusingly similar to “MANKIND” and the KIND-family, giving the respondent an unfair “springboard”.
No evidence of bona fide commercial use existed for five years preceding the petition; hence the registration contravenes section 47(1)(b).

Accordingly, the Court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove “UNKIND” (class 35) from the register forthwith.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and their Influence

Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (DHC 6914) – Key holding: “KIND” is not descriptive for pharmaceuticals and, through long use, has become distinctive of Mankind; hence it merits higher protection. – Influence: Provided the doctrinal foundation for granting quasi-monopoly rights over the suffix within the pharma space.
Mankind Pharma v. Lemford Biotech Pvt. Ltd. (2025:DHC:1232) and allied suits (2023:DHC:2700; 2024:DHC:7590; CO(Comm.IPD-TM) 257/2022; 282/2022) – In each, the Court restrained third parties from using marks like “NOVAKIND”, “DR. KIND”, etc., reinforcing the concept of a protectable “KIND” family. – Influence: Demonstrated consistent judicial affirmation, which Justice Karia invoked to conclude that “KIND” had become associated exclusively with Mankind.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

a) Family-of-Marks Doctrine: Borrowed from U.S./U.K. jurisprudence, this doctrine protects a series of marks sharing a common formative element which consumers link to a single source. The Court held that Mankind had generated a strong secondary meaning for “KIND” through extensive registrations and use (over 300 marks). b) Acquired Distinctiveness vs. Dictionary Word: Though “kind” is an ordinary English word, in the context of pharmaceuticals it is neither descriptive nor laudatory. Continuous use since 1986 transformed it into a source identifier. c) Section 11 (Relative Grounds): The similarity lay in the shared suffix, identical trade channel (pharma and allied retail services) and risk of association. The absence of market presence by the respondent did not dilute this risk. d) Section 47 (Non-Use): Demonstrated by lack of sales evidence; the statutory five-year window was satisfied. e) Bad Faith/Bona Fide Adoption: Adoption of a mark featuring the identical distinctive suffix within the same industry, coupled with non-use, signified mala fide intent to ride on Mankind’s reputation.

3.3 Impact on Future Cases

Elevated Protection for Suffixes/Prefixes: Courts may now more readily confer proprietary status to a “word within a mark” if a proprietor shows extensive family use, even if that word has dictionary existence.
Class 35 (Advertising, Trading) Coverage: The decision cancels a class 35 mark, signalling that proprietors in goods classes can object to confusingly similar marks in service classes when consumer overlap exists (e.g., pharmacy retail, e-commerce).
Ex Parte Rectification: Besides reinforcing WhatsApp/e-service practicality, it shows the Court’s willingness to cancel a registration even without respondent participation when documentary evidence is strong.
Strategic Licensing and Portfolio Management: Pharma companies will likely audit their portfolios to identify common “family features” and ring-fence them via multi-class filings and enforcement.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Family-of-Marks: A set of trade marks sharing a common element (e.g., “KIND”) used by one owner for different products. If consumers recognise the shared element as pointing to that owner, the family enjoys broader protection.
Rectification: A legal process to correct the Trade Mark Register by cancelling or varying an entry that was wrongly made or has since become invalid.
Well-Known Mark (Rule 124): A mark recognised by a substantial part of the public which links goods/services exclusively to one proprietor. Gives cross-class protection.
Non-Use (Section 47(1)(b)): If a registered mark is not used for five consecutive years, anyone aggrieved may seek its removal. Purpose: keep the register uncluttered.
Deceptive Similarity: When two marks are so alike in appearance, sound or meaning that an average consumer may believe they come from the same source.

5. Conclusion

Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Ram Kumar is significant for firmly entrenching the family-of-marks doctrine within Indian trade-mark jurisprudence, especially in the pharmaceutical sector where patient safety amplifies the need to avoid confusion. By holding that “KIND” — a common English word — has nonetheless acquired exclusivity through prolonged, consistent use, the Court underscores that distinctiveness is a matter of marketplace reality, not dictionary meaning. The judgment will serve as a persuasive precedent enabling brand owners to:

Assert rights over recurring elements across their mark portfolio.
Seek rectification against squatters or dormant registrations in related service classes.
Rely on robust sales and marketing evidence to establish secondary meaning.

In the broader legal landscape, the decision bridges Indian practice with comparative jurisprudence and continues the Delhi High Court’s proactive role in developing nuanced trade-mark principles responsive to modern branding strategies.