The central legal point established in the judgment is the protection of trademark rights and copyright, and the prevention of passing off and infringement through the use of imitative marks and logos.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. The present suit for infringement of registered trademark, passing of copyright, rendition of accounts has been filed by the Plaintiff – Mankind Pharma Ltd. against two Defendants i.e. Ultrakind Health Care – Defendant No.1 and Atlanta Remedies – Defendant No.2.

2. The case of the Plaintiff is that it owns the trademark ‘MANKIND’ as also the ‘M’ logo, which is written in a distinctive form. The Plaintiff also claims that the trademark ‘MANKIND’ is registered in its name. The Plaintiff further claims that it has a series of marks with the trademark ‘MANKIND’ and the suffix ‘KIND’. Ld Counsel for the Plaintiff, thus, submits that the Plaintiff’s right extends over the trademark ‘MANKIND’ and the family of marks which bear the suffix ending with ‘KIND’. The details of the registrations of the mark ‘MANKIND’ and the other family of marks with the suffix ‘KIND’ as also the domain names are set out in paragraphs 7 to 10 of the plaint.

3. The grievance of the Plaintiff in the present case is that the Defendants are using the trademark ‘ULTRAKIND’ and also using the letter ‘U’ in a manner which is imitative of the Plaintiff’s ‘M’ logo. The two logos and the manner of depiction are set out herein below:

Image

PLAINTIFF’S LOGO

Image

DEFENDANT NO. 1’S LOGO

4. The Plaintiff states in the plaint that the use of the ‘U’ logo, the manner of writing ‘ULTRAKIND’ and also use of ‘KIND’ as a suffix is violative of its rights and goodwill and also dilutes its reputation. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is seeking an injunction against the use of trade name ‘Ultrakind Health Care’, deceptively similar ‘U’ logo, the use of any mark with the suffix ‘KIND’ as also in the get up of the logo, which may be perceived to be an imitation of the Plaintiff’s marks, logos and packaging.

5. The suit was listed on 8th July, 2014 on which date this Court had granted an ad interim injunction in the following terms.

“..... 11. Accordingly, the defendants, their dealers, agents, associates, directors, partners, employees, servants, assigns are restrained from trading, selling, advertising, distributing and dealing in any manner under the trade name ULTRAKIND HEALTH CARE and from using the trade mark MECOKIND or any other mark with the word element 'KIND', which are deceptively and phonetically similar to the plaintiffs well-known registered trade name MANKIND and trademark METROKIND. The defendants are further restrained from infringing, passing off or causing to pass off goods under an artwork, get up, label and symbol etc., which is deceptively similar to the plaintiffs corporate ID in relation to marketing of medicinal and pharmaceutical goods in any manner whatsoever, till the next date of hearing.

…………………..”

6. Local Commissioners were also appointed to visit the premises of the Defendants and prepare an inventory of the products containing the infringing marks and labels. Subsequently, an application was moved by the Plaintiff submitting that the exact address of Defendant No.1 was not available and that the commission may only be executed at Defendant No.2’s premises. Accordingly, the local commission was duly executed only at the premises of Defendant No.2. The reports of the Local Commissioners have also been filed on record. The said reports show that there were two products, which were found at the premises of Defendant no.2. The Defendant No.2 at the time of execution of the commission stated to the Local Commissioner that they were supplying the infringing goods to Ultrakind Health Care only till 8th July, 2014 and that currently they were not supplying any products to the Defendant No.1. No goods were found bearing mark Ultrakind Health Care. Only two products were found i.e. Lactocal AD-3 and Protocal-DSR, both of which did not bear any of the infringing marks, logos or names. The proprietor of Defendant No.2 had stated to the Local Commissioner that he had, in the past, manufactured MECOKIND for the Defendant No.1.

7. The Defendant