In a recent move, the Delhi High Court’s division bench has instructed its one-judge bench to quickly review and rule on a request from Mankind Pharma. Chandra Mani Tiwari and others are attempting to stop using the term “Mercykind Pharmaceuticals” in their business dealings through this plea. The main issues in this legal dispute are Tiwari’s dishonest brand name adoption and claims of trademark infringement. Tiwari was formerly employed by Mankind Pharma.
The case has gained importance because it raises issues regarding the rights of businesses to protect their brand identification against potentially deceptive or confusing imitations, as well as the protection of well-established trademarks. The well-known pharmaceutical company Mankind Pharma asserts that it has been utilizing the “Mankind” trademark since 1986. The business has established a strong brand presence over the years and now possesses 157 trademarks with the suffix “Kind.” Mankind Pharma has highlighted its significant income, which surpasses Rs 4000 crore, and turnover of Rs 7000 crore in order to further accentuate its market position.
Up until January 2015, Chandra Mani Tiwari worked as a marketing manager at Mankind Pharma. She is suspected of starting a new business under the name “Mercykind Pharmaceuticals.” Mankind Pharma asserts that Tiwari’s new venture’s usage of the suffix “Kind” violates their trademark rights and is a purposeful attempt to confuse consumers in order to profit from Mankind Pharma’s well-established goodwill.
The division bench, presided over by Justice Yashwant Varma, recognized that Tiwari had made notable alterations to the logo and general presentation of the goods sold under the “Mercykind” brand while the appeal was pending. But the bench felt that these changes, together with other pertinent matters, required a new and in-depth investigation by the lone judge. Whether Tiwari’s adoption of the “Mercykind” name is “dishonest adoption,” considering his prior affiliation with Mankind Pharma, is the major question that needs to be addressed.
A temporary injunction against Tiwari was denied by the sole court in 2018, enabling him to carry on with business under the “Mercykind” name. To ascertain if Tiwari’s acts violate Mankind Pharma’s trademark rights, a more extensive judicial examination is required, as shown by the division bench’s latest judgment, which indicates that the case is far from resolved.
This case serves as a reminder of the value of trademark protection and the difficulties businesses have when preserving their brand identities in cutthroat markets. The resolution of this legal dispute may have wider ramifications for trademark law, especially in situations when former workers use identical or confusingly similar brand names.
SOURCE :
THE ECONOMICS TIMES
