{"id":11459,"date":"2025-11-11T11:19:20","date_gmt":"2025-11-11T11:19:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=11459"},"modified":"2025-11-11T11:23:39","modified_gmt":"2025-11-11T11:23:39","slug":"composite-marks-common-to-trade-and-consumer-wonderment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/composite-marks-common-to-trade-and-consumer-wonderment\/","title":{"rendered":"Composite Marks, Common To Trade, And Consumer Wonderment"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2 id=\"case-overview\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Facts_Of_The_Case_Delhi_High_Court_Trademark_Case_BL_Agro_Industries_Vs_Madan_Lal_Purushottam_Das_Foods_Bail_Kolhu_Trademark_Dispute\"><\/span>Facts Of The Case: Delhi High Court Trademark Case: B.L. Agro Industries Vs Madan Lal Purushottam Das Foods | Bail Kolhu Trademark Dispute<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>This case arises from a trademark dispute in the edible oil market between <strong>B. L. Agro Industries Limited<\/strong>, proprietor of the registered mark \u201c<strong>BAIL KOLHU<\/strong>\u201d (word and device), and <strong>Madan Lal Purushottam Das Foods Private Limited<\/strong>, which began using the mark \u201c<strong>AROHUL KOHLU<\/strong>\u201d with a device featuring an ox tethered to a grinder, for similar goods including edible oils, ghee, fats, and allied products, as alleged by the respondent B. L. Agro in the suit below.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_83 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/composite-marks-common-to-trade-and-consumer-wonderment\/#Facts_Of_The_Case_Delhi_High_Court_Trademark_Case_BL_Agro_Industries_Vs_Madan_Lal_Purushottam_Das_Foods_Bail_Kolhu_Trademark_Dispute\" >Facts Of The Case: Delhi High Court Trademark Case: B.L. Agro Industries Vs Madan Lal Purushottam Das Foods | Bail Kolhu Trademark Dispute<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/composite-marks-common-to-trade-and-consumer-wonderment\/#Trademark_Ownership_And_History\" >Trademark Ownership And History<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/composite-marks-common-to-trade-and-consumer-wonderment\/#Trademark_Registration_Status\" >Trademark Registration Status<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/composite-marks-common-to-trade-and-consumer-wonderment\/#Discovery_Of_Alleged_Infringement\" >Discovery Of Alleged Infringement<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/composite-marks-common-to-trade-and-consumer-wonderment\/#Procedural_Details\" >Procedural Details<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/composite-marks-common-to-trade-and-consumer-wonderment\/#Commercial_Court_Order\" >Commercial Court Order<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/composite-marks-common-to-trade-and-consumer-wonderment\/#Appeal_Before_Delhi_High_Court\" >Appeal Before Delhi High Court<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/composite-marks-common-to-trade-and-consumer-wonderment\/#Core_Legal_Dispute\" >Core Legal Dispute<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/composite-marks-common-to-trade-and-consumer-wonderment\/#Appellants_Arguments\" >Appellant\u2019s Arguments<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/composite-marks-common-to-trade-and-consumer-wonderment\/#Respondents_Arguments\" >Respondent\u2019s Arguments<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/composite-marks-common-to-trade-and-consumer-wonderment\/#Detailed_Reasoning_By_The_High_Court\" >Detailed Reasoning By The High Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/composite-marks-common-to-trade-and-consumer-wonderment\/#Test_For_Likelihood_Of_Confusion\" >Test For Likelihood Of Confusion<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/composite-marks-common-to-trade-and-consumer-wonderment\/#Likelihood_Of_Association\" >Likelihood Of Association<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/composite-marks-common-to-trade-and-consumer-wonderment\/#Idea_Infringement_And_Device_Similarity\" >Idea Infringement And Device Similarity<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/composite-marks-common-to-trade-and-consumer-wonderment\/#Common_To_The_Trade_Defense\" >Common To The Trade Defense<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/composite-marks-common-to-trade-and-consumer-wonderment\/#Distinctiveness_And_Validity\" >Distinctiveness And Validity<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/composite-marks-common-to-trade-and-consumer-wonderment\/#Appellate_Interference_Standard\" >Appellate Interference Standard<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-18\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/composite-marks-common-to-trade-and-consumer-wonderment\/#Judgment_And_Decision\" >Judgment And Decision<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-19\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/composite-marks-common-to-trade-and-consumer-wonderment\/#Disclaimer\" >Disclaimer<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<h3 id=\"trademark-history\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Trademark_Ownership_And_History\"><\/span>Trademark Ownership And History<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>B. L. Agro claims adoption of \u201cBAIL KOLHU\u201d since 1 January 1986.<\/li>\n<li>Registered for word and device marks in Class 29 (edible oils, ghee, fats, dairy products) and other classes.<\/li>\n<li>Copyright registrations for the device since 1999.<\/li>\n<li>Continuous and extensive use leading to substantial goodwill and turnover growth.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3 id=\"registration-status\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Trademark_Registration_Status\"><\/span>Trademark Registration Status<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The appellant attempted to register similar device marks on a \u201cproposed to be used\u201d basis in 2022 and 2023, but both applications were abandoned by the Registrar of Trade Marks in December 2023 and July 2024. The respondent continued to own valid registrations for the \u201cBAIL KOLHU\u201d word and device marks.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"discovery-infringement\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Discovery_Of_Alleged_Infringement\"><\/span>Discovery Of Alleged Infringement<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>In July 2025, the respondent discovered the appellant\u2019s products on online platforms using \u201cAROHUL KOHLU\u201d with an ox-and-grinder device similar to the respondent\u2019s mark. Alleging consumer confusion, the respondent filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction and interim relief.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"procedural-details\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Details\"><\/span>Procedural Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>In <strong>CS (COMM) 464\/2025<\/strong> before the Commercial Court, Shahdara, B. L. Agro sought:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>An <strong>ex parte ad interim injunction<\/strong> under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC to restrain use of the impugned mark.<\/li>\n<li>Appointment of a <strong>Local Commissioner<\/strong> under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC to visit the appellant\u2019s premises and seize\/inventorize infringing goods.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3 id=\"commercial-court-order\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Commercial_Court_Order\"><\/span>Commercial Court Order<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>By order dated <strong>4 August 2025<\/strong>, the Commercial Court:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Granted <strong>ex parte ad interim injunction<\/strong> restraining the appellant.<\/li>\n<li>Recorded prima facie infringement of the \u201cBAIL KOLHU\u201d trademark by deceptive and phonetic similarity.<\/li>\n<li>Appointed a <strong>Local Commissioner<\/strong> to seize and inventorize goods.<\/li>\n<li>Relied on precedents: <em>Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das<\/em>, <em>Munish Kumar Singla Trading v. Jollibee Foods Corporation<\/em>, and <em>Devagiri Farms Pvt Ltd v. Sanjay Kapur<\/em>.<\/li>\n<li>Fixed the next hearing for <strong>20 September 2025<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3 id=\"appeal-delhi-high-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Appeal_Before_Delhi_High_Court\"><\/span>Appeal Before Delhi High Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The appellant filed <strong>FAO (COMM) 234\/2025<\/strong> before the Delhi High Court under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act read with Order XLIII CPC, challenging the ex parte interim order. The Bench suggested allowing the Commercial Court to decide the interim application uninfluenced, but the appellant pressed the appeal on merits, prompting detailed appellate analysis within the narrow scope of interim appellate interference.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"core-dispute\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Core_Legal_Dispute\"><\/span>Core Legal Dispute<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The main issue was whether the appellant\u2019s use of \u201cAROHUL KOHLU\u201d with an ox-and-grinder device infringed the respondent\u2019s registered \u201cBAIL KOLHU\u201d marks under <strong>Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/strong> by causing likelihood of confusion or association among average consumers.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"appellant-arguments\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Appellants_Arguments\"><\/span>Appellant\u2019s Arguments<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>\u201cKolhu\u201d is a public term describing traditional wood-press extraction of mustard oil.<\/li>\n<li>The ox-with-grinder motif is common in trade and non-distinctive.<\/li>\n<li>\u201cBAIL KOLHU\u201d and \u201cAROHUL KOHLU\u201d are dissimilar as whole marks.<\/li>\n<li>The respondent cannot dissect a composite mark (anti-dissection rule, Section 17).<\/li>\n<li>The device is descriptive and protected by Section 30(2)(a).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3 id=\"respondent-arguments\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Respondents_Arguments\"><\/span>Respondent\u2019s Arguments<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>Registered proprietor since 2001 (device) and 2006\/2016 (word mark) in Class 29.<\/li>\n<li>Extensive market use creating strong consumer association.<\/li>\n<li>Overall visual and phonetic similarity likely to confuse consumers.<\/li>\n<li>Statutory rights warrant protection through interim injunction.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 id=\"court-reasoning\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Detailed_Reasoning_By_The_High_Court\"><\/span>Detailed Reasoning By The High Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<h3 id=\"confusion-test\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Test_For_Likelihood_Of_Confusion\"><\/span>Test For Likelihood Of Confusion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Court reaffirmed that the test is from the perspective of an average consumer of ordinary intelligence and imperfect recollection. Marks are compared as wholes, consistent with:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Pernod Ricard v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra<\/em><\/li>\n<li><em>Khoday Distilleries Ltd v. Scotch Whisky Association<\/em><\/li>\n<li><em>Parle Products v. J.P. Co.<\/em><\/li>\n<li><em>Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta<\/em><\/li>\n<li><em>Cadila Healthcare v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3 id=\"likelihood-association\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Likelihood_Of_Association\"><\/span>Likelihood Of Association<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Infringement under Section 29(2) occurs even where a consumer might believe the marks are connected. Momentary association or \u201cinitial interest confusion\u201d suffices for interim relief.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"idea-infringement\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Idea_Infringement_And_Device_Similarity\"><\/span>Idea Infringement And Device Similarity<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Court held that appropriation of the dominant idea\u2014the ox tethered to a grinding machine\u2014constitutes infringement. Similarity includes similarity of the <em>idea<\/em> conveyed by the marks.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"common-trade\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Common_To_The_Trade_Defense\"><\/span>Common To The Trade Defense<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The appellant\u2019s \u201ccommon to trade\u201d defense failed for lack of market usage evidence. Cited cases:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Pankaj Goel v. Dabur India Ltd<\/em><\/li>\n<li><em>Express Bottlers v. Pepsi Inc.<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The Court emphasized that producing registrations alone is insufficient; proof of actual market use is required.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"distinctiveness\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Distinctiveness_And_Validity\"><\/span>Distinctiveness And Validity<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Registered trademarks enjoy presumption of validity under Section 31. The ox-with-grinder image was held to be suggestive, not descriptive, and thus protectable. Reference: <em>T.V. Venugopal v. Ushodaya Enterprises<\/em>.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"appellate-interference\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Appellate_Interference_Standard\"><\/span>Appellate Interference Standard<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Following <em>Wander Ltd v. Antox India<\/em>, the High Court reiterated that appellate interference with discretionary interim orders is limited. The Commercial Court\u2019s injunction and commissioner appointment were upheld.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"judgment-decision\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judgment_And_Decision\"><\/span>Judgment And Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<table border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"6\">\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<th>Case Title<\/th>\n<td>Madan Lal Purushottam Das Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs B. L. Agro Industries Ltd.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Order Date<\/th>\n<td>28 August 2025<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Case Number<\/th>\n<td>FAO (COMM) 234\/2025<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Neutral Citation<\/th>\n<td>2025:DHC:7772-DB<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Court<\/th>\n<td>High Court of Delhi<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Judges<\/th>\n<td>Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Commercial Court\u2019s ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the appellant from using the impugned mark and device.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"disclaimer\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Disclaimer\"><\/span>Disclaimer<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Written By:<\/strong> Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Facts Of The Case: Delhi High Court Trademark Case: B.L. Agro Industries Vs Madan Lal Purushottam Das Foods | Bail Kolhu Trademark Dispute This case arises from a trademark dispute in the edible oil market between B. L. Agro Industries Limited, proprietor of the registered mark \u201cBAIL KOLHU\u201d (word and device), and Madan Lal Purushottam<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[24],"class_list":{"0":"post-11459","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property","7":"tag-just-in"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11459","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11459"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11459\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11459"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11459"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11459"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}