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

22nd November, 2024 - 9:41 am Categories: Trademark 0 Comments

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]

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.