Facts
The plaintiff, M/s KRBL Limited, is one of India’s leading companies engaged in the business of processing, marketing, and exporting rice, including basmati rice. In 1993, the plaintiff adopted the trademark “INDIA GATE” along with the artistic device of the India Gate monument for its rice products. Over time, the plaintiff’s brand attained enormous reputation and goodwill across India and internationally, with trademark registrations not only in India but also in several foreign jurisdictions including Canada and Australia. The plaintiff also secured a copyright registration for the artistic label depicting the India Gate. Subsequently, in 2019, while the present suit was pending, the plaintiff became the registered proprietor of the trademark “INDIA GATE” in Class 30 under No. 599833.
The plaintiff discovered in 2006 that the defendants had applied for registration of the trademark “MUMBAI GATE” with the device of a gate for rice. The plaintiff objected immediately on the ground that the mark was a deceptive imitation of the famous INDIA GATE mark, likely to mislead the public into assuming an association between the defendants’ products and the plaintiff. The defendants did not commence commercial use of the mark, but their registration attempts and efforts to build distribution networks across India triggered the suit.
Procedural Details
- The suit was instituted in 2006 seeking a permanent injunction for infringement of copyright and trademark and for passing off.
- Summons were issued and an ex parte ad-interim injunction was granted on 02.11.2006 restraining the defendants from using the mark “MUMBAI GATE”.
- The defendants appeared initially and filed a written statement but did not produce invoices or documentary proof of commercial use.
- Issues were framed on 16.12.2008.
- Evidence was led by the plaintiff showing continuous use of INDIA GATE since 1993.
- The defendants failed to cross-examine witnesses or file evidence.
- On 24.10.2024, defendants were proceeded ex parte due to continued absence.
Core Dispute
The central legal question was whether the defendants’ trademark “MUMBAI GATE with the device of a gate” constituted infringement and passing off against the plaintiff’s established and well-known registered trademark “INDIA GATE”. The plaintiff claimed that the rival marks were phonetically, visually, structurally and conceptually similar, creating a high probability of deception. The defendants, having stopped defending the suit, put forward no evidence to support their mark or justify its adoption.
Detailed Reasoning And Analysis
The Court first acknowledged that the plaintiff had incontestable prior rights over the trademark INDIA GATE. Continuous commercial use since 1993, massive sales volumes, and wide market penetration established strong goodwill. The trademark had also been officially recognised as a well-known trademark in the Trademarks Journal No. 1915 on 19.08.2019, evidence of its special status under trademark law.
The registration certificate dated 12.08.2019 for INDIA GATE in Class 30 confirmed statutory rights under the Trademarks Act, 1999. Further, the copyright registration reinforced ownership of the artistic work in the label.
The Court noted that the defendants had not placed on record any evidence of actual commercial use of “MUMBAI GATE”. However, proof of actual use is not necessary for granting an injunction if imitation and likelihood of confusion exist. The very adoption of a deceptively similar mark is actionable if it is intended to ride upon the reputation of another.
The Court relied upon decisions previously recognising the proprietary rights of KRBL Limited in the INDIA GATE trademark, including:
- KRBL Limited v. Praveen Kumar Buyyani
- KRBL Limited v. John Doe
- Century Traders v. Roshan Lal Duggar
- Wow Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Wow Burger & Anr.
The most critical legal test applied was the triple identity test, affirmed in KRBL Limited v. Praveen Kumar Buyyani — similarity of:
| Factor | Observation |
|---|---|
| Marks | INDIA GATE vs MUMBAI GATE, both using “GATE” and gate device |
| Goods | Identical product — Rice |
| Customer Base | Same consumers, leading to likely confusion |
The Court held that the defendants’ adoption was dishonest and would mislead ordinary purchasers. The injunction granted in 2006 prevented further damage and was rightly made permanent as there was no legal or equitable ground to deny final relief.
Decision
The High Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. A permanent injunction was granted restraining the defendants from using the trademark “MUMBAI GATE” or any other mark deceptively similar to “INDIA GATE”. The interim injunction dated 02.11.2006 was merged into the final decree.
The plaintiff did not press for relief concerning damages or delivery-up due to lack of evidence of commercial sales. However, considering extensive litigation over nineteen years and 95 hearing dates, the Court awarded ₹10,00,000 as lump-sum legal costs.
With these directions, the suit was decreed and disposed of.
Case Details
- Case Title: KRBL Limited Vs Becher Raghavji Patel & Anr.
- Case Number: CS(COMM) 724/2016
- Date of Order: 31 October 2025
- Court: High Court of Delhi
- Hon’ble Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
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], High Court of Delhi
