Delhi High Court Reinforces Trademark Protection in Dual Rulings on Deceptive Similarity and Secondary Meaning

In a significant day for intellectual property rights enforcement, the Delhi High Court delivered two crucial ad-interim injunctions on November 7, 2025, underscoring its commitment to protecting established trademarks from infringement in both the pharmaceutical and food industries. Presiding over both matters, Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora granted relief to Mankind Pharma Limited and Capital Foods Pvt. Ltd. in separate cases, reinforcing the legal doctrines surrounding well-known marks, deceptive similarity, and acquired secondary significance.

These rulings signal a robust judicial stance against attempts to piggyback on the goodwill of established brands, providing critical clarity on the tests for trademark infringement and passing off.

---

Mankind Pharma v. De Harbien: Protecting the 'KIND' Family of Marks

In a classic case of trademark infringement in the pharmaceutical sector, the High Court restrained De Harbien Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. from using the marks “NEFROKIND” and “SILOKIND.” The court found these marks to be deceptively similar to Mankind Pharma Limited’s well-known “MANKIND” trademark and its extensive family of “KIND” formative marks.

Background of the Dispute

Mankind Pharma, a titan in the Indian pharmaceutical industry, filed the suit seeking to protect its portfolio of registered trademarks. The company has been using its flagship “MANKIND” mark since 1986, building substantial goodwill and reputation over nearly four decades. This extensive usage led to the official recognition of “MANKIND” as a well-known trademark in December 2020, a status that accords it a higher degree of protection against dilution and infringement.

The plaintiff argued that it had cultivated a family of marks ending with the suffix "KIND," such as “NUROKIND,” “SIVOKIND,” and “PILOKIND,” which consumers strongly associate with its brand. The dispute arose in September 2025, when Mankind discovered De Harbien marketing and selling pharmaceutical products under the impugned marks “NEFROKIND” and “SILOKIND.”

Further investigation revealed that De Harbien’s prior applications to register these marks had been rejected by the Trade Marks Registry. Despite this, the defendant filed a new application for “NEFROKIND.” A cease-and-desist notice issued by Mankind was met with defiance, as De Harbien claimed independent creation and refused to halt the use of the marks, prompting the legal action.

Court's Analysis: Likelihood of Confusion is Inevitable

Justice Arora, in granting the ex-parte ad-interim injunction, focused on the high potential for consumer confusion, a critical element in pharmaceutical trademark cases where public health is at stake. The court noted that Mankind is the registered proprietor of numerous “KIND” related trademarks and its core mark has earned significant reputation.

The court observed that De Harbien’s marks “NEFROKIND” and “SILOKIND” not only incorporate the entirety of Mankind’s distinctive “KIND” suffix but also structurally resemble Mankind’s existing product names. This, the court held, was a clear attempt to benefit from the goodwill laboriously built by Mankind Pharma.

In a key passage from the order, the court articulated the test for confusion:

“The Defendant is using the impugned mark on identical goods in the same line of business, whilst catering to the same class of consumers as the Plaintiff. Consequently, there is inevitably going to be a likelihood of confusion, and an unwary customer with average intelligence and imperfect recollection will associate the Defendant's impugned product with the Plaintiff's products.”

The court concluded that Mankind had successfully established a prima facie case. It found the balance of convenience lay in favor of the plaintiff and that allowing De Harbien to continue would cause irreparable harm to Mankind’s brand equity and potentially mislead consumers. Consequently, De Harbien Life Sciences, its directors, and associates were restrained from using “NEFROKIND,” “SILOKIND,” or any other mark deceptively similar to Mankind’s trademarks until the next hearing, scheduled for April 10, 2026.

---

Capital Foods v. KRS Multipro: Upholding 'Schezwan Chutney' as a Distinctive Mark

In a parallel ruling on the same day, Justice Arora granted another significant injunction, this time in favor of Capital Foods Pvt. Ltd., the company behind the popular "Ching's Secret" brand. The court restrained KRS Multipro Pvt. Ltd. from using the identical mark “Schezwan Chutney,” reaffirming that the term has acquired secondary significance and functions as a source-identifier for Capital Foods.

This order was the second of its kind in a week, following a similar injunction granted on November 3, 2025, against a different manufacturer, highlighting Capital Foods' vigorous campaign to protect its flagship trademark.

Background of the Dispute

Capital Foods, an associate of the Tata Group, has been a major player in the food industry for over two decades. The company adopted and began using the mark “Schezwan Chutney” in 2012 for a unique Indo-Chinese style sauce. The mark was registered in November 2012, and the company also secured copyright for its distinctive packaging.

The plaintiff discovered in June 2025 that KRS Multipro was selling a competing product using the identical mark “Schezwan Chutney” on its website. When confronted with a legal notice, KRS Multipro contended that the term “Schezwan Chutney” was generic and descriptive, a common defense in such cases.

Court's Finding: From Descriptive to Distinctive

Rejecting the defendant's genericness argument, the court sided with Capital Foods. Justice Arora emphasized that Capital Foods is the registered proprietor of the trademark, a fact that confers a statutory right of exclusive use. More importantly, the court relied on an earlier determination by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, which had already recognized that the mark “Schezwan Chutney” had acquired secondary significance through Capital Foods' extensive use, substantial sales, and promotional activities.

Secondary meaning, or acquired distinctiveness, is a crucial legal concept where a term that might have been descriptive at its inception becomes so closely associated with a specific producer in the public mind that it functions as a trademark.

The court held that KRS Multipro’s use of an identical mark for an identical product was a "dishonest imitation" aimed at unlawfully capitalizing on the reputation and goodwill associated with Capital Foods. Such use, the court concluded, was highly likely to deceive consumers into believing that KRS Multipro’s product originated from or was affiliated with Capital Foods.

Finding a strong prima facie case, the court ruled that continued infringement would cause irreparable damage to Capital Foods’ brand and create confusion in the market. Accordingly, it passed an ad-interim injunction restraining KRS Multipro and its associates from manufacturing, selling, or advertising any product under the “Schezwan Chutney” name or any deceptively similar expression. The case is set to be heard next on April 15, 2026.

---

Broader Implications for IP Jurisprudence

These two decisions, delivered by the same bench on the same day, provide a powerful illustration of the Delhi High Court's role as a vigilant guardian of intellectual property rights.

1. Strength of Well-Known Marks: The Mankind decision reaffirms the heightened protection afforded to well-known trademarks and their formative elements. It serves as a stern warning to potential infringers that adopting marks which echo the distinctive parts of famous brands, especially in sensitive sectors like pharmaceuticals, will face stringent judicial scrutiny.

2. Acquired Secondary Meaning: The Capital Foods case is a textbook example of how a seemingly descriptive mark can, through consistent and extensive commercial use, transcend its original meaning to become a valuable asset. It underscores the importance for brand owners to meticulously document their sales, advertising expenditure, and market presence to prove acquired distinctiveness.

3. Consistency in Judicial Approach: The consistent application of trademark principles across different industries—from life-saving drugs to pantry staples—demonstrates a unified and predictable approach from the judiciary. This consistency is vital for fostering a stable business environment where investment in brand-building is legally protected and encouraged.

For legal practitioners, these orders offer fresh and compelling precedents on the standards for granting interim injunctions in trademark disputes. They highlight the judiciary's focus on preventing consumer deception and protecting the commercial and reputational interests of diligent brand owners. As both cases proceed, the legal community will be watching closely for further developments.