- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi High Court Provides Relief To Mankind Pharma In Trademark Suit Against Sanshiv Health Tech
Delhi High Court Provides Relief To Mankind Pharma In Trademark Suit Against Sanshiv Health Tech
Notes that the pharmaceutical goods were formulated for children, hence required greater protection to avoid confusion
The Delhi High Court has granted injunctive relief to Mankind Pharma Limited by restraining a pharmaceutical manufacturer Sanshiv Health Tech from using a similar trademark.
The bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee found that the defendant (Sanshiv) was guilty of blatantly adopting and using the impugned trade dress and design. On the other hand, the plaintiff (Mankind) made out a prima facie case for grant of an ad interim ex-parte injunction in its favor.
The judge ruled, "In case the defendants are not restrained by way of an ad interim ex-parte injunction, there is a likelihood of the plaintiff suffering irreparable harm, loss, injury and prejudice, which cannot be compensated in terms of money.”
The bench noted that the pharmaceutical goods were formulated specifically for children, therefore, greater protection was required to avoid confusion.
Mankind Pharma Limited was represented by Rajiv Nayar (Senior Advocate) along with the team of Khaitan & Co. It was led by Ankur Sangal (Partner), Ankit Arvind (Principal Associate), Shashwat Rakshit (Senior Associate) and Nidhi Pathak (Associate).