This case revolves around a trademark dispute between KRBL Ltd., the registered owner of the trademark "INDIA GATE" for rice, and the respondents, who marketed rice under the name "BHARAT GATE." The High Court of Delhi addressed the question of whether the respondent's use of "BHARAT GATE" infringed the appellant's trademark rights.
Background KRBL Ltd., a prominent rice manufacturer, has been using the trademark "INDIA GATE" since 1993, with the mark registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The respondents began selling rice under the name "BHARAT GATE", prompting KRBL Ltd. to file a suit seeking a permanent injunction and damages for trademark infringement and passing off. The dispute escalated when the trial court vacated an earlier ex parte interim injunction granted in favor of KRBL Ltd. The company appealed this decision to the Delhi High Court.

Brief Facts of the Case

• Appellant: KRBL Ltd., a well-known rice manufacturer, owns the trademark "INDIA GATE."
• Respondents: Praveen Kumar and others, engaged in selling rice under the name "BHARAT GATE."

Trademark Conflict

• KRBL Ltd. alleged that "BHARAT GATE" was deceptively similar to "INDIA GATE" and amounted to infringement and passing off.
• The respondents argued that the marks were dissimilar in design, packaging, and phonetics, and that "India" and "Bharat" are synonymous and publici juris.

Trial Court Ruling

• The court vacated the interim injunction, holding that the marks were not deceptively similar and catered to different customer segments based on price and quality.

Issues Raised

• Whether "BHARAT GATE" is deceptively similar to "INDIA GATE."
• Whether the registration of "INDIA GATE" grants exclusivity over its components ("India" and "Gate").
• Whether the differences in packaging, design, and price mitigate the likelihood of confusion.
• Whether the trial court's decision was based on erroneous reasoning.

Appellant's Submission

• Asserted that "BHARAT GATE" was phonetically, visually, and conceptually similar to "INDIA GATE."
• Highlighted the prominence of the India Gate monument in both marks, suggesting an attempt to mislead consumers.
• Cited several precedents to argue that deceptive similarity should be assessed from the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect recollection.

Respondents' Submission

• Claimed that "BHARAT GATE" was distinct in phonetics, design, and packaging.
• Argued that "India" and "Bharat" are synonymous and publici juris, and "Gate" is a generic term.
• Emphasized the price and quality differences between the products, asserting that they cater to different customer segments.

Judgments Referred

• Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satyadeo Gupta (1963): Established the test of an average consumer with imperfect recollection for determining deceptive similarity.
• Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J.P. & Co. (1972): Highlighted the importance of the overall impression of marks rather than side-by-side comparison.
• K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal & Co. (1969): Held that phonetic similarity can establish infringement, even in the absence of visual resemblance.
• Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. B. Vijaya Sai (2022): Reiterated that price differences are irrelevant in cases of trademark infringement.
• Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia (2004): Emphasized that dishonest adoption of a mark warrants an injunction, irrespective of delay in filing the suit.

Reasoning of the Court

• Deceptive Similarity: The Court held that "BHARAT GATE" was phonetically and conceptually similar to "INDIA GATE." The use of "Bharat" (a synonym for "India") and the prominent depiction of the India Gate monument indicated an attempt to capitalize on the goodwill of the appellant's trademark.
• Publici Juris Argument: The Court rejected the argument that "India" and "Gate" are publici juris, emphasizing that the appellant claimed exclusivity over the composite mark "INDIA GATE," not its individual components.
• Design and Packaging: Visual differences in packaging and design were deemed insufficient to negate the likelihood of confusion, especially since both marks featured the India Gate monument prominently.
• Price and Customer Segments: The Court dismissed the relevance of price differences, noting that trademarks protect goodwill and consumer perception, regardless of market segments.
• Dishonest Adoption: The Court found that the respondents' adoption of "BHARAT GATE" was a deliberate attempt to mislead consumers and exploit the appellant's reputation.

Decision: The Delhi High Court quashed the trial court's order and restored the interim injunction granted earlier. The respondents were restrained from using "BHARAT GATE" or any deceptively similar mark for rice or related products.

Case Title: KRBL Ltd. Vs. Praveen Kumar & Others
Date of Order: January 15, 2025
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 24/2024
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:251-DB
Court: High Court of Delhi
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Digpaul

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539