Pharmaceutical "Family Marks": When a Shared Brand Element Can Be Enforced

Introduction : Drug names are rarely invented from nothing. A company that sells a pantoprazole tablet, a rabeprazole tablet and an etoricoxib tablet will often attach one recognizable syllable to each generic name, so that doctors and patients come to read the syllable as a signature. After a few decades, the syllable does more work than any single product name. Indian trade mark law calls the resulting group a ‘family of marks’, and its enforcement keeps returning to the Delhi High Court.

On 16 September 2026, an ex parte ad interim injunction was issued by Justice Jyoti Singh in the case of Mankind Pharma Ltd v Coskind Pharma (P) Ltd. The defendant was prohibited from engaging in the sale of medicines under the names Florakind, Coskind, Etorikind, Pandokind, Rabelkind, and M-Predkind, or any similarly deceptive ‘KIND’-formative mark. This ruling poses a question that every life-sciences firm ought to clarify: when is it appropriate to enforce a common brand element, and when does a claim concerning just one syllable constitute overreach? This blog outlines the legal framework, evaluates the doctrine in light of recent rulings, examines the increased risk of misunderstanding in prescription drugs, and concludes with a checklist for approving new product names.

Legal Provision

The Trade Marks Act, 1999

Section 28(1) grants a registered proprietor the right to use the mark. Under Section 29(2) using a mark on identical or similar goods is an infringement if it is likely to confuse the public and Section 2(1)(h) considers a mark deceptively similar when it almost looks like another mark and is likely to deceive or cause confusion. Section 11 applies the same test to later marks and Section 57 permits a registration that violates it to be cancelled.

Two provisions go the other way. Section 17 limits the registration of a mark to the mark as a whole. A part that is common to the trade or non‑distinctive does not become the proprietor’s property simply because it was registered together with another matter. Section 9(1) by contrast allows a mark that is not inherently distinctive to be registered once it has gained a distinctive character through use.

A doctrine without a section

The Act says nothing about a ‘family of marks’. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court accepted in July 2025 that the concept was created by judges. Found it consistent with the scheme of the Act. In that view it is a method of assessing confusion and not a separate statutory right.

Legal Analysis

What the owner has to show. Owning registrations does not make a family. The court wants to know whether the marks sharing the element are in use in a consistent pattern so that the trade and the public tie the element to one source. In Modi‑Mundipharma v Preet International the court accepted CONTIN as a family mark. Rejected the defendants’ claim that it was common to the trade. Their evidence consisted of register entries and pending applications with nothing to show use. Register entries show what people have applied for. They do not show what is on sale.

The Division Bench in Modi Mundipharma v Specialty Meditech later rejected the view that the concept helps in passing off and held that it can support an infringement claim as well.8 It also urged restraint. An injunction must be tied to the marks that are actually challenged. Words such as ‘continuous’ or ‘contingent’ do not infringe a CONTIN family simply because they share letters with it.

Acquired distinctiveness in a syllable. ‘Kind’ is an English word and a defendant will usually argue that no one can own it. In Mankind Pharma v Ram Kumar, the Delhi High Court did not accept that argument on the record before it. The word has no link with the sale of medicines and use since 1986 across more than 300 registrations, supported by a group turnover of over ₹3,500 crore in 2017 had made KIND exclusively associated with the petitioner.9 Those figures were the petitioner’s own submissions. The court also observed that changing the half of a name while keeping the distinguishing element is likely to confuse.

This is acquired distinctiveness in the sense

A common word turned into a mark of origin by use. What matters is how long the element has been used and how much has been. How regularly it appears in the naming pattern. The number of registrations counts for the least. A syllable fixed to products in the position and manner reads as a house signature far more readily than one scattered across unrelated naming styles.

The limits of a monopoly over a syllable. Section 17(2)(b) draws the boundary. If an element merely describes the drug, its class or its dosage form or is a stem used across the industry it belongs to the trade. No proprietor can fence it off. Mankind’s position is strong because ‘kind’ says nothing to a buyer about the medicine. A company whose family element hints at the ingredient or the therapeutic use stands on weaker ground.

Commentators have warned that reading broadly the doctrine lets large companies claim affixes and discourages legitimate naming. Two features of the recent KIND decisions sharpen the concern. The Coskind order is an ex parte ad interim order and Ram Kumar was decided with the respondent absent and its pleadings treated as uncontested. Neither test the argument about commonness, in the trade, which a contested hearing would have forced. The better reading of both is that they show what a court does when the evidence is one‑sided. They do not establish that a well‑known syllable is always enforceable.

Why medicines are treated differently

Cadila Health Care v Cadila Pharmaceuticals is a Supreme Court decision that says, for medicines, the public interest means it is enough to prove a level of similarity between trademarks. This is because a mistake with medicine can be more serious than a mistake with ordinary goods. The court in Preet International used this principle and dismissed the argument that having a prescription‑only status would eliminate the risk. The comparison still follows the test set by Amritdhara Pharmacy v Satya Deo Gupta, which asks how the trademarks as a whole would appear to a person of average intelligence and imperfect memory.

Mistakes can happen at many stages. A doctor might misread a prescription or choose the wrong name from a drop‑down list in prescribing software when two names share a syllable and differ by only a few letters. A pharmacist who receives a telephone order or an unclear slip might hand over the name on the shelf. A patient who cannot read the name depends on the brand to recognize a repeat purchase and for over‑the‑counter sales that is the only safety net. A shared ending also creates a risk: all three parties may think the products come from the same manufacturer and share the same quality. That is confusion about origin and section 29(2) addresses it.

Relevant Case Laws

Cadila Health Care Ltd v Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd, (2001) 5 SCC 73: The Supreme Court listed the factors that help judge confusion. Those factors include the nature of the trademarks, the type of buyers and how the goods are bought. The court said that medicines require a standard. Pharmaceutical disputes in India still start with this case.

Amritdhara Pharmacy v Satya Deo Gupta, AIR 1963 SC 449: The Court compared the trademarks AMRITDHARA and LAKSHMANDHARA for goods. It asked whether the trademarks, when seen as a whole, would confuse a person of intelligence and imperfect memory. The court said the test looks at the impression not at each part separately.

Modi-Mundipharma Pvt Ltd v Preet International Pvt Ltd (Del HC 3 December 2009): The court viewed CONTIN as a family of trademarks. It rejected a defense that the mark was common in trade based on the register. The court also refused to accept that having a status would remove the risk of confusion. The court ordered an injunction against FEMICONTIN. Gave time to clear existing stock.

Modi Mundipharma Pvt Ltd v Specialty Meditech Pvt Ltd, RFA(OS)(COMM) 8/2023 (Del HC, 1 July 2025): The Division Bench acknowledged that a family of trademarks can be involved in infringement not just in passing off. It said that each case must be looked at individually based on the trademarks that are challenged.

Mankind Pharma Ltd v Ram Kumar, C.O. (COMM.IPD‑TM) 566/2022 (Del HC, 22 August 2025): The court ordered that UNKIND be removed from the Register because it is deceptively similar to the KIND family and was dishonestly adopted. The case had no contest.

Mankind Pharma Ltd v Coskind Pharma (P) Ltd, 2026 SCC Online Del 7512 (Del HC, 16 September 2026): The court issued an ex parte ad injunction against six names that form the KIND family. The injunction was based on the registrations, the use of those names since 1986 and the Cadila case. The final outcome will be decided in a hearing.

Practical Implications

Owners of a family of trademarks should prepare the record before a dispute starts. They need proof that each product in the family has used sales figures for each mark and a naming policy that shows the element has been used consistently. Registrations alone are not enough. A claim that a family owns an element that describes the drug is very difficult to defend.

A company can put out a product with a name that does not sound like any brand on the market today and still be dangerous. Sharing a component with a popular group is risky. But it’s not enough to just do what the court said in Ram Kumar – change the beginning of the name but keep the finish. A little clearance procedure can be helpful: 

1. Think outside the registry. The market, not apps, indicates common use. Look at prescribing databases, e-pharmacy listings and pharmacy catalogs from the Trade Marks Registry.

2. Look for a recurring element. If the proposed name has a prefix or suffix that shows up in products of one company, consider that company as a potential family owner.

3. Test the element itself. Does it describe the drug, its class or its dosage form? Descriptive or stem‑like elements carry risk.

4. Consider the evidence of use: how long the family has been on the market, the range of products it covers and the size of its sales.5. Compare by sound, look and overall impression, including the way the name sounds when spoken in an order and looks in writing.

6. Map the overlap in class, dosage form, strength and channel of sale. The closer the products are, the higher the risk becomes.

7. Check the chain from prescriber to pharmacist to patient and see if the product is sold over the counter too.8. Register. If the risk is real, choose a component or get a written consent or coexistence agreement. And also maintain a clearance note explaining the reasons.

Beneath this is a policy question of balance. Patients need to be protected from look-alike names The pool of names available must remain open. If the first to make wide use of a syllable can capture it, new entrants will run short of safe names and smaller manufacturers will bear most of the cost.

Conclusion

The Coskind order confirms that a pharmaceutical family of marks can be enforced when a shared element has been used consistently and for long to identify a single source. Courts also apply a threshold of proof where medicines are concerned. It does not confirm that a syllable can be owned outright. Section 17 the Division Bench’s insistence on an approach in Specialty Meditech and the uncontested character of the recent KIND rulings all point the other way.

Three changes would make the law more predictable. Courts could ask a party relying on a family for a showing of the marks in use, the years of use, the sales under each mark and the position of the common element. Interim relief could be limited to the marks and goods in issue. And the Registry could publish its search practice for pharmaceutical names so applicants know in advance how an element shared across marks will be treated. Until then careful clearance and good records are the protection, on either side.

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

Endnotes

1. Mankind Pharma Ltd v Coskind Pharma (P) Ltd 2026 SCC OnLine Del 7512 (Del HC, 16 September 2026) (Jyoti Singh J); see ‘Delhi HC Restrains Use of “Kind” Formative Marks’ (SCC Online Blog, 1 October 2026) https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/10/01/delhi-hc-restrains-use-of-kind-formative-marks/

2. Trade Marks Act 1999, ss 2(1)(h), 28(1), 29(2).

3. Trade Marks Act 1999, ss 11, 57.

4. Trade Marks Act 1999, s 17.

5. Trade Marks Act 1999, s 9(1) proviso.

6.  Modi Mundipharma Pvt Ltd v Speciality Meditech Pvt Ltd RFA(OS)(COMM) 8/2023 (Del HC, 1 July 2025) (C Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul JJ); see ‘Family of Marks Concept Not Expressly Recognised Under Trademarks Act But Can Be Applied To Injunct Specific Marks: Delhi High Court’ (LiveLaw, 4 July 2025) https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/family-of-marks-concept-not-expressly-recognised-under-trademarks-act-but-can-be-applied-to-injunct-specific-marks-delhi-high-court-296455

7. Modi-Mundipharma Pvt Ltd v Preet International Pvt Ltd IA No 12593/2007 in CS(OS) 2176/2007 (Del HC, 3 December 2009) (Manmohan Singh J).

8. Speciality Meditech (n 6); Amar Singh Chawalwala v Shree Vardhman Rice & General Mills 160 (2009) DLT 267 (DB).

9. Mankind Pharma Ltd v Ram Kumar C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 566/2022 (Del HC, 22 August 2025) (Tejas Karia J) paras 3, 10, 21–25.

10. ‘SpicyIP Tidbit: Analysing the Mankind Pharma Order Through the Lens of the Modi Pharma Case on the Family of Marks Doctrine’ (SpicyIP, August 2025) https://spicyip.com/2025/08/spicyip-tidbit-analysing-the-mankind-pharma-order-through-the-lens-of-the-modi-pharma-case-on-the-family-of-marks-doctrine.html.

11. Mankind Pharma v Coskind (n 1); Mankind Pharma v Ram Kumar (n 9) paras 8, 18, 20.

12. Cadila Health Care Ltd v Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd (2001) 5 SCC 73.

13. Amritdhara Pharmacy v Satya Deo Gupta AIR 1963 SC 449.