Pharma Limited v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited6 , wherein it has been held that the petitioner’s long-standing use of the ‘ KIND ’ family of marks provided sufficient ground to it for heightened protection of its marks. The learned counsel has also placed reliance on the decisions of this Court, as rendered in the cases of Caterpillar Inc. v. Mehtab Ahmed & Ors.7 and Bata India Ltd. v. Chawla Boot House8 . In both cases, this Court has held that despite any generic or descriptive connotations, the long-standing, extensive use of the marks had endowed the plaintiffs in the said matters with inherent distinctiveness and secondary meaning, thereby vesting the petitioners with exclusive rights over their respective families of marks. 10. Learned counsel further submitted that the mark with the element ‘ KIND ’ is being used by the petitioner in a fanciful and arbitrary manner within the pharmaceutical industry and has no direct or even remote reference to any characteristic or description of the goods that it markets and sells. Consequently, it is contended, that the exclusive right to use the mark is vested solely in the petitioner. For this, he relied upon Kirorimal Kashiram 9 Marketing and Agencies Pvt. Ltd. v. Shree Sita Chawal Udyog wherein, it has been held that it is impermissible to replicate a substantial element of another party’s registered trademark, particularly, when such a word mark is arbitrarily adopted in relation to the products in question.
