Delhi High Court Sets Aside Trade Marks Registry Order Refusing Mankind Pharma's PETKIND Trademark

Justice Tejas Karia, by a judgment dated January 9, 2026, allowed the appeal filed by Mankind Pharma, holding that the refusal of the trademark was unjustified in view of the company's long-standing use and reputation associated with its “KIND” family of marks.

The court observed that, “the Cited Mark in the Examination Report would not lead to rejection of the Subject Trade Mark considering the overwhelming use and registrations of marks with the suffix 'KIND' by the Appellant.”

By an order dated November 6, 2024, the Registry had refused Mankind Pharma's application after citing an earlier mark bearing the same name, “PETKIND,” registered for pet food and related products.

The Registry held that the two marks were identical and that their use in respect of similar goods was likely to cause confusion among consumers. Aggrieved by the refusal, Mankind Pharma filed an appeal before the High Court.

Mankind Pharma told the court that it is one of India's leading pharmaceutical companies and has, over decades, built a strong portfolio of trademarks using the word “KIND” as a distinctive and identifying element. The company pointed out that it owns hundreds of registrations containing the “KIND” suffix and that its flagship mark “MANKIND” has been recognised by the Trade Marks Registry as a well-known trademark.

The court noted that trademark law does not permit refusal of registration merely because a similar or identical mark exists on record. It emphasized that the Registry must also assess whether there is a real likelihood of confusion in the minds of consumers, having regard to the nature of the goods and the surrounding circumstances.

“Until and unless, on facts, it is established that, owing to identity / similarity of the mark of which registration is sought, and of the goods / services covered thereby, with an earlier mark, there is likelihood of confusion / association in the mind of the public, registration cannot be refused on that ground,” the Court said.

The court also noted that Mankind Pharma has been using “KIND”-based marks since the 1980s and has secured a large number of registrations, thereby establishing a “family of marks” associated with the company. In contrast, the earlier cited mark relied upon by the Registry was only a “proposed to be used” application, with no evidence of actual commercial use.

Holding that Mankind Pharma's extensive use, registrations and goodwill attached to the “KIND” suffix outweighed the Registry's concerns, the Court ruled that the cited mark could not, by itself, justify refusal of the “PETKIND” trademark.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the Registry's refusal order and directed that the “PETKIND” trademark application be advertised in the Trade Marks Journal.

Case Title: Mankind Pharma Limited v. The Registrar Of Trade Marks

Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 34

Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 13/2025

For Appellant: Advocates Hemant Daswani and Saumya Bajpai

For Respondent: CGSC Nidhi Raman with Advocates Om Ram & Mayank Sansanwal