The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction restraining De Harbien Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. from using the marks 'NEFROKIND' and 'SILOKIND'. The order, delivered by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora on November 7, 2025, came in response to a suit filed by Mankind Pharma Ltd.—one of India’s largest drug manufacturers—claiming that De Harbien’s marks were deceptively similar to its well-known "MANKIND" and "KIND" trademarks.
Background
The plaintiff, Mankind Pharma, asserted that it has been using the "MANKIND" brand since 1986 and that the term "KIND" has become an integral and recognizable suffix across its product line-seen in popular drugs such as NUROKIND, SIVOKIND, and PILOKIND. The company further informed the court that its sales under the MANKIND/KIND family of trademarks crossed ₹9,497 crore in FY 2024–25, with nearly ₹564 crore spent on advertising the same year.
According to Mankind Pharma, De Harbien Life Sciences had recently begun selling pharmaceutical products under the impugned names 'NEFROKIND' and 'SILOKIND', both online and through pharmacy channels, including on the e-commerce platform 1mg. The plaintiff discovered this allegedly infringing activity in mid-2025 and promptly issued a legal notice demanding that the defendant cease using the marks. When De Harbien refused, Mankind approached the Delhi High Court seeking urgent relief.
De Harbien, however, in its written reply, denied any wrongdoing. It claimed the marks were coined independently, arguing that they were neither identical nor confusingly similar, and were used for products targeting different therapeutic segments.
Court’s Observations
After hearing Senior Advocate Chander Lall for Mankind Pharma, the Court noted that the plaintiff was indeed the registered proprietor of several "KIND"-formative trademarks and that "MANKIND" had already been recognized as a "well-known mark" by the Trademark Registry. Justice Arora referred to earlier orders where the court had acknowledged Mankind’s exclusive proprietary rights over its trademark family.
"The facts set out in the plaint evidence the formidable reputation and goodwill built by the plaintiff in its trademark 'MANKIND' and 'KIND'," the bench observed, emphasizing that the extensive sales and advertising expenses demonstrated the distinct identity of these marks in the pharmaceutical industry.
The Court pointed out that De Harbien, being in the same line of business, "is bound to be aware of the reputation and goodwill" of the plaintiff’s brands. By incorporating "KIND" in its own products - 'NEFROKIND' and 'SILOKIND' - the defendant appeared to be taking "unfair advantage" of Mankind Pharma’s established market presence. Justice Arora remarked that such similarity was likely to "mislead the public into believing that the Defendant’s goods are connected with or endorsed by the Plaintiff, when no such association exists."
Decision
Finding a prima facie case in Mankind’s favour, the Court concluded that there was a real likelihood of confusion among consumers, particularly since both parties operated in the same pharmaceutical sector. "The Plaintiff and the general public are likely to suffer grave irreparable harm in case an ex parte ad-interim injunction is not granted," Justice Arora stated.
Accordingly, the Court restrained De Harbien Life Sciences, its officers, distributors, and agents from manufacturing, selling, advertising, or dealing in any goods under the marks 'NEFROKIND', 'SILOKIND' or any other trademark deceptively similar to ‘MANKIND’, ‘KIND’, or its variants.
The matter will next be heard on April 10, 2026, with directions for the defendant to file its reply within four weeks. The Court also ordered compliance with procedural requirements under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC within one week.
Case Title: Mankind Pharma Limited vs. De Harbien Life Sciences Private Limited
Case Number: CS (COMM) 1185/2025