Trademark Protection in the Pharmaceutical Industry: Insights from Mankind Pharma Limited V. Sanshiv Health Tech Private Limited

A main part of global healthcare system is the pharmaceutical industry, which calls for great procession in protecting intellectual property. By identifying one product from another, trademarks in this industry serve to both protect consumers and represent a company’s brand. The Delhi High Court’s ruling in Mankind Pharma Limited v. Sanshiv Health Tech Private Limited & Anr. highlights the judiciary’s proactive approach to protecting public health by closely examining trademark infringement.[1]

Pharmaceutical trademarks are essential to maintain consumer safety and are not merely for branding. Errors in the pharmaceutical industry can result in serious health concerns, even death, in contrast to other industries where brand misunderstanding may cause financial losses. This emphasizes the necessity of strict procedures to stop trademark abuse or misrepresentation.

In the current case, the findings of the courts are consistent with the issue’s widespread recognition. The ruling demonstrates how the Indian judiciary is in line with global best practices in stopping unethical behaviour that can endanger customers. To enhance its IP environment, India is gradually implementing the strict restrictions of countries like the US and the EU to reduce trademark-related consumer confusion in medicines.

Background

Mankind Pharma Limited, a leading pharmaceutical company brought a sued against Sanshiv Health Tech Private Limited alleging that it was engaged in unfair trade practices and trademark infringement. The Plaintiff said that the Defendant’s product, which was marketed under the trademark “CALIKA-P”, falsely reproduced its trademark, “CALDIKIND-P” which was used for calcium supplements.[2] Mankind Pharma claimed that the Defendant intentionally used a similar trademark, and label to mislead consumers into confusing “CALIKA-P” with “CALDIKIND-P” taking advantage of the Plaintiff’s goodwill in the due process.[3]

Trademark Law
[Image Sources: Shutterstock]

The Delhi High Court issued a temporary injunction prohibiting the defendant from using the trademark “CALIKA-P” or any confusingly similar variation of “CALDIKIND-P”.[4] Judge Saurabh Banerjee said that there is a greater chance of consumer confusion because both items are aimed at the same market and customers. The court further explained that given the impact of this situation on the health of users, illegal trademark copying in the pharmaceutical sector could be the issue with the highest stakes.

The court did accept that trademarks are important and they shield the public from products that are not genuine. Besides the side effect of a company’s image becoming negative, false trademarks may cause the most serious problems when the use of these is unauthorized and the safety of the consumer is concerned, especially in cases of medications for children. These limitations must be rigorously implemented to prevent consumer confusion and maintain safety in pharmaceutical trademark disputes.

Precedent and Public Policy Considerations

Earlier decisions that stressed the need for stricter penalties for pharmaceutical fraud are in line with this outcome. In the drug industry, the Supreme Court in Cadila Health Care Ltd., v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.[5] stated that the unique role of trademarks is especially important due to the serious consequences of drug errors. Similar concerns have been raised by the Delhi High Court, which stressed that the court has to ensure the protection of public health over the interests of the individuals involved.[6]

It also shows the Court’s dedication to maintaining the integrity of the market by relying on the concepts of unfair competition and passing off. Deceptive tactics damage customer confidence and interfere with fair competition, which eventually lowers the standard of pharmaceutical items on the market.

Conclusion: Balance Between Protection and Innovation

Since the fact that the pharmaceutical industry is at a crossroad between the business and public health sectors, the patent protection is the most important component.

The Delhi High Court in Mankind Pharma Limited v. Sanshiv Health Tech indicates the judiciary’s interest in consumer safety measures, fair competition promotion and conducting public sector regulation in a principled and wise manner. The pharmaceutical sector should not only be vigilant but also intellectual property laws should be enforced more strictly. The trademarks are reliable to ensure the safety of customers and at the same time to maintain the integrity of the market, thus the courts should be proactive to solve these problems.

The trademark laws overlap with the protection of the public’s health and well-being in addition to the strict intellectual property protection provided to companies by said laws. With the continuous development of intellectual property laws in India, cases like this one are the strongest framework the courts can use to deal with the issues of the pharmaceutical industry. The courts have an irreplaceable role in crafting the market that is safer and more equitable by balancing business interest and the consumer interest.

Author: Priyanshu Raj, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

[1]  Srivastava, Bhavini. “Courts Should Be More Strict in Trademark Violation Cases of Pharma Products: Delhi High Court.” Bar and Bench – Indian Legal News (2024).

[2] Suchita Shukla, Courts Have To Be More Cautious In Pharmaceutical Trademark Cases To Avoid Public Confusion Over Competing Products: Delhi HC, (2024), https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/mankind-pharma-limited-v-sanshiv-health-tech-private-ltd-trademark-pharma-more-caution-public-confusion-competition.

[3] Id.

[4] Sanjana Dadmi, Mankind v. Aquakind: Delhi High Court Issues Ex-Parte Interim Injunction Against Sale Of Pharma Products With “KIND” Formative Trademarks, (2024), https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/mankind-pharmaceutical-products-ex-parte-ad-interim-injunction-274875.

[5] Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2001 (5) SCC 73.

[6] Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., https://www.theipmatters.com/post/cadila-healthcare-ltd-v-cadila-pharmaceuticals-ltd.

Leave a Reply

Categories

Archives

  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010