{"id":23409,"date":"2026-05-03T05:51:29","date_gmt":"2026-05-03T05:51:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=23409"},"modified":"2026-05-03T05:54:20","modified_gmt":"2026-05-03T05:54:20","slug":"nandhini-deluxe-vs-kmfp-trademark-case-analysis-2018","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-vs-kmfp-trademark-case-analysis-2018\/","title":{"rendered":"Nandhini Deluxe vs KMFP Case Analysis (2018) \u2013 Trademark Law, Section 11 &amp; Consumer Confusion Explained"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<article id=\"nandhini-deluxe-vs-kmf-case-analysis\">\n\n  <h1 id=\"case-analysis-title\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Analysis_Nandhini_Deluxe_Vs_Karnataka_Co-Operative_Milk_Producer_Federation_Ltd_AIR_2018_SC_3516\"><\/span>Case Analysis: Nandhini Deluxe Vs. Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producer Federation Ltd. (AIR 2018 SC 3516)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h1>\n\n  <section id=\"introduction\">\n    <h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"I_Introduction\"><\/span>I. Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n    <p><strong>Respondent \u2013 Co-Operative Federation of the Milk Producers of Karnataka<\/strong> \u2013 Represented by S.S Naganand<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 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-1'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-vs-kmfp-trademark-case-analysis-2018\/#Case_Analysis_Nandhini_Deluxe_Vs_Karnataka_Co-Operative_Milk_Producer_Federation_Ltd_AIR_2018_SC_3516\" >Case Analysis: Nandhini Deluxe Vs. Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producer Federation Ltd. (AIR 2018 SC 3516)<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-2' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-vs-kmfp-trademark-case-analysis-2018\/#I_Introduction\" >I. Introduction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-vs-kmfp-trademark-case-analysis-2018\/#II_Facts\" >II. Facts<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-vs-kmfp-trademark-case-analysis-2018\/#III_Issues_Raised\" >III. Issues Raised<\/a><\/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\/nandhini-deluxe-vs-kmfp-trademark-case-analysis-2018\/#IV_Judgement\" >IV. Judgement<\/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\/nandhini-deluxe-vs-kmfp-trademark-case-analysis-2018\/#Deputy_Registrars_Ruling\" >Deputy Registrar\u2019s Ruling<\/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\/nandhini-deluxe-vs-kmfp-trademark-case-analysis-2018\/#Judgement_by_IPAB\" >Judgement by IPAB<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-vs-kmfp-trademark-case-analysis-2018\/#Karnataka_High_Court_Judgement\" >Karnataka High Court Judgement<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-vs-kmfp-trademark-case-analysis-2018\/#Supreme_Court_Judgement\" >Supreme Court Judgement<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-vs-kmfp-trademark-case-analysis-2018\/#V_Case_Analysis\" >V. Case Analysis<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-vs-kmfp-trademark-case-analysis-2018\/#Key_Factors_Considered_by_Supreme_Court\" >Key Factors Considered by Supreme Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-vs-kmfp-trademark-case-analysis-2018\/#Holistic_Approach\" >Holistic Approach<\/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\/nandhini-deluxe-vs-kmfp-trademark-case-analysis-2018\/#Interaction_of_Section_11_with_Well-Known_Marks\" >Interaction of Section 11 with Well-Known Marks<\/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\/nandhini-deluxe-vs-kmfp-trademark-case-analysis-2018\/#Statutory_Provisions_Applied\" >Statutory Provisions Applied<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-vs-kmfp-trademark-case-analysis-2018\/#VI_Conclusion\" >VI. Conclusion<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-vs-kmfp-trademark-case-analysis-2018\/#VII_Endnotes\" >VII. Endnotes<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n    <p><strong>Appellant \u2013 Nandhini Deluxe<\/strong> \u2013 Represented by Advocate Sushant Singh<\/p>\n\n    <p>This is one of the landmark cases dealing with the issue related to registration of a trademark in India. This case mainly deals with provisions such as Section 9(2)(a), Section 11(1)(b) of the Trademark Act, 1999. The case also illuminates the idea of trademark similarity, the scope of trademark protection, consumer confusion risks, and how monopolistic rights can be maintained over product categories that overlap.<\/p>\n\n    <p>The important cases referred in this case are Nestle India Ltd. Vs. Mood Hospitality Pvt. (2010), Vishnudas Vs. The Vazir Sultan Tobacco Ltd., Eco Lean Research and Development A\/S Vs. IPAB and Asst. Registrar of Trademark (2011).<\/p>\n\n    <p>The case involved judgements by four judicial bodies:<\/p>\n    <ul>\n      <li>The Deputy Registrar of the Trademark<\/li>\n      <li>The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB)<\/li>\n      <li>The High Court of Karnataka<\/li>\n      <li>The Supreme Court of India<\/li>\n    <\/ul>\n\n    <p>The case witnessed several developments and twists at different stages, including appeals from both the parties. The Supreme Court judges who decided this case were A.K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan.<\/p>\n  <\/section>\n\n  <section id=\"facts\">\n    <h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"II_Facts\"><\/span>II. Facts<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n    <p>Co-Operative Federation of the Milk Producers of Karnataka (Respondent) adopted a trademark called \u2018NANDINI\u2019 in 1985 for selling milk and dairy products. The trademark was registered under Class 29 and Class 30.<\/p>\n\n    <table border=\"1\">\n      <thead>\n        <tr>\n          <th>Trademark Class<\/th>\n          <th>Scope<\/th>\n        <\/tr>\n      <\/thead>\n      <tbody>\n        <tr>\n          <td>Class 29<\/td>\n          <td>Meat, fish, poultry, frozen foods, vegetables, eggs, milk products, oils, fats<\/td>\n        <\/tr>\n        <tr>\n          <td>Class 30<\/td>\n          <td>Coffee, tea, cocoa, cereals, and food preparations<\/td>\n        <\/tr>\n      <\/tbody>\n    <\/table>\n\n    <p>Nandhini Deluxe (Appellant) was running restaurant business and \u2018NANDHINI\u2019 was adopted as its trademark in 1989. The mark was used for food items falling under Classes 29 and 30.<\/p>\n\n    <p>The respondent objected under Section 11(2) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, arguing that:<\/p>\n    <ul>\n      <li>The mark \u2018NANDINI\u2019 is widely used and registered<\/li>\n      <li>The appellant\u2019s mark is phonetically similar<\/li>\n      <li>There is likelihood of public confusion<\/li>\n    <\/ul>\n\n    <p>All objections were dismissed by the Registrar of Trademarks and the application was allowed.<\/p>\n\n    <p>Subsequent legal journey:<\/p>\n    <ul>\n      <li>2010 \u2013 Appeal dismissed by IPAB<\/li>\n      <li>2011 \u2013 IPAB reversed decision in favor of respondent<\/li>\n      <li>Karnataka High Court \u2013 Upheld IPAB decision<\/li>\n      <li>Supreme Court \u2013 Allowed registration of \u2018NANDHINI\u2019<\/li>\n    <\/ul>\n  <\/section>\n\n  <section id=\"issues-raised\">\n    <h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"III_Issues_Raised\"><\/span>III. Issues Raised<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n    <ol>\n      <li>Whether the appellant can seek registration of the mark \u201cNANDHINI\u201d under Class 29 and Class 30?<\/li>\n      <li>Whether \u201cNANDHINI\u201d can be registered despite similarity with \u201cNANDINI\u201d?<\/li>\n      <li>Whether a trademark owner can claim monopoly over an entire class of goods?<\/li>\n    <\/ol>\n  <\/section>\n\n  <section id=\"judgement\">\n    <h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"IV_Judgement\"><\/span>IV. Judgement<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n    <h3 id=\"deputy-registrar-ruling\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Deputy_Registrars_Ruling\"><\/span>Deputy Registrar\u2019s Ruling<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n    <p>The goods of both parties were different despite being in the same class. The appellant dealt with various food items, whereas the respondent dealt only with milk products.<\/p>\n\n    <p>Visual differences in trademarks:<\/p>\n    <ul>\n      <li>Respondent \u2013 Cow logo with \u201cNANDINI\u201d<\/li>\n      <li>Appellant \u2013 Lamp logo with \u201cNANDHINI Deluxe\u201d<\/li>\n    <\/ul>\n\n    <p>Registration was allowed.<\/p>\n\n    <h3 id=\"ipab-judgement\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judgement_by_IPAB\"><\/span>Judgement by IPAB<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n    <p><strong>2010:<\/strong> Supported Registrar\u2019s decision and allowed registration.<\/p>\n    <p><strong>2011:<\/strong> Reversed decision, holding:<\/p>\n    <ul>\n      <li>Marks are phonetically similar<\/li>\n      <li>\u201cH\u201d does not create distinction<\/li>\n      <li>Respondent\u2019s mark is well-known<\/li>\n    <\/ul>\n\n    <h3 id=\"high-court-judgement\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Karnataka_High_Court_Judgement\"><\/span>Karnataka High Court Judgement<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n    <p>The High Court upheld the IPAB\u2019s 2011 ruling.<\/p>\n\n    <h3 id=\"supreme-court-judgement\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Supreme_Court_Judgement\"><\/span>Supreme Court Judgement<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n    <p>The Supreme Court overturned earlier rulings and held:<\/p>\n    <ul>\n      <li>Visual and contextual differences prevent confusion<\/li>\n      <li>Goods\/services are distinct<\/li>\n      <li>Minor similarity cannot block trademark registration<\/li>\n    <\/ul>\n\n    <p><strong>Condition imposed:<\/strong> Appellant cannot sell milk or milk products.<\/p>\n\n    <p>The judgement balanced trademark protection with fair competition.<\/p>\n  <\/section>\n\n  <section id=\"case-analysis\">\n    <h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"V_Case_Analysis\"><\/span>V. Case Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n    <p>This case deals with key legal issues:<\/p>\n    <ul>\n      <li>Trademark similarity and consumer confusion<\/li>\n      <li>Extent of monopoly of well-known marks<\/li>\n      <li>Application of Sections 9(2)(b), 11(2), and 11(8)<\/li>\n      <li>Secondary distinctiveness<\/li>\n    <\/ul>\n\n    <h3 id=\"key-factors\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Factors_Considered_by_Supreme_Court\"><\/span>Key Factors Considered by Supreme Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n    <ul>\n      <li><strong>Visual Appearance:<\/strong> Different logos and designs<\/li>\n      <li><strong>Overall Impression:<\/strong> Marks assessed holistically<\/li>\n      <li><strong>Nature of Goods:<\/strong> Dairy vs restaurant services<\/li>\n      <li><strong>Consumer Perception:<\/strong> Average consumer standard<\/li>\n      <li><strong>Generic Elements:<\/strong> \u201cNandini\u201d considered common<\/li>\n    <\/ul>\n\n    <h3 id=\"holistic-approach\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Holistic_Approach\"><\/span>Holistic Approach<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n    <p>The Court considered market channels, reputation, and usage history to establish honest concurrent use.<\/p>\n\n    <h3 id=\"section-11-analysis\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Interaction_of_Section_11_with_Well-Known_Marks\"><\/span>Interaction of Section 11 with Well-Known Marks<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n    <p>Section 11(1) prohibits registration of similar marks causing confusion. However, the Court clarified:<\/p>\n    <ul>\n      <li>No absolute monopoly over a class<\/li>\n      <li>Different goods reduce confusion risk<\/li>\n      <li>Honest concurrent use is protected<\/li>\n    <\/ul>\n\n    <h3 id=\"statutory-provisions\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Statutory_Provisions_Applied\"><\/span>Statutory Provisions Applied<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n    <table border=\"1\">\n      <thead>\n        <tr>\n          <th>Provision<\/th>\n          <th>Purpose<\/th>\n        <\/tr>\n      <\/thead>\n      <tbody>\n        <tr>\n          <td>Section 11<\/td>\n          <td>Relative grounds (confusion with existing marks)<\/td>\n        <\/tr>\n        <tr>\n          <td>Section 9(2)(a)<\/td>\n          <td>Absolute grounds (misleading marks)<\/td>\n        <\/tr>\n      <\/tbody>\n    <\/table>\n\n    <p>The case demonstrates application based on actual confusion rather than class-based restrictions.<\/p>\n  <\/section>\n\n  <section id=\"conclusion\">\n    <h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"VI_Conclusion\"><\/span>VI. Conclusion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n    <p>The judgement clarifies that class classification alone does not determine confusion. Trademark law focuses on distinctiveness and nature of goods\/services.<\/p>\n\n    <p>It highlights India\u2019s balanced approach between competition and trademark protection, aligned with Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.<\/p>\n\n    <p>This case is significant in resolving ambiguities in trademark law and strengthening judicial interpretation of the Trademarks Act, 1999.<\/p>\n  <\/section>\n\n  <section id=\"endnotes\">\n    <h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"VII_Endnotes\"><\/span>VII. Endnotes<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n    <ol>\n      <li>Nandhini Deluxe Vs. Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd., 2018 (9) SCC 189<\/li>\n      <li>Nestl\u00e9 India Ltd. v. Mood Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., (2010)<\/li>\n      <li>Vishnudas Kushandas Vs. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Ltd., (1996)<\/li>\n      <li>India Filings \u2013 Trademark Classes 29 &#038; 30<\/li>\n      <li>Trademarks Act, 1999 \u00a7 11(2)<\/li>\n      <li>Cadila Health Care Ltd. Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001)<\/li>\n      <li>Supreme Court Judgement (2018)<\/li>\n      <li>Competition Act, 2002 \u00a7 4<\/li>\n    <\/ol>\n  <\/section>\n\n  <footer id=\"author\">\n    <p><strong>Written By:<\/strong> Kushangi Rana, LL.M. Student at UPES<\/p>\n  <\/footer>\n\n<\/article>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Case Analysis: Nandhini Deluxe Vs. Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producer Federation Ltd. (AIR 2018 SC 3516) I. Introduction Respondent \u2013 Co-Operative Federation of the Milk Producers of Karnataka \u2013 Represented by S.S Naganand Appellant \u2013 Nandhini Deluxe \u2013 Represented by Advocate Sushant Singh This is one of the landmark cases dealing with the issue related to<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1444,"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":[5873],"tags":[5969],"class_list":{"0":"post-23409","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-trademark-law","7":"tag-trademark-laws"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23409","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\/1444"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23409"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23409\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23441,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23409\/revisions\/23441"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23409"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23409"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23409"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}