{"id":27611,"date":"2026-07-16T05:40:39","date_gmt":"2026-07-16T05:40:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=27611"},"modified":"2026-07-16T05:45:14","modified_gmt":"2026-07-16T05:45:14","slug":"nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/","title":{"rendered":"Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.: Supreme Court on Trademark Protection Beyond Product Classes"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h1 id=\"h-nandhini-deluxe-v-karnataka-co-operative-milk-producers-federation-ltd-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Nandhini_Deluxe_v_Karnataka_Co-Operative_Milk_Producers_Federation_Ltd_Trademark_Protection_Beyond_Product_Classes\"><\/span>Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.: Trademark Protection Beyond Product Classes<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The decision of the Supreme Court in <em>Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.<\/em> is one of the most important trademark judgements in India, dealing with the scope of protection available to a registered trademark when similar marks are used for different goods and services. The dispute revolved around the use of the marks &#8220;NANDINI&#8221; and &#8220;NANDHINI&#8221;, raising questions about deceptive similarity, likelihood of confusion, well-known trademarks, concurrent use, and the extent to which a trademark proprietor can claim exclusivity over an entire class of goods.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_85 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-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/#Nandhini_Deluxe_v_Karnataka_Co-Operative_Milk_Producers_Federation_Ltd_Trademark_Protection_Beyond_Product_Classes\" >Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.: Trademark Protection Beyond Product Classes<\/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-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/#Factual_and_Procedural_Background\" >Factual and Procedural Background<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/#Procedural_History_at_a_Glance\" >Procedural History at a Glance<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/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-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/#Dispute_Before_the_Court\" >Dispute Before the Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/#Key_Issues_Before_the_Supreme_Court\" >Key Issues Before the Supreme Court<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/#Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Court\" >Reasoning and Analysis of the Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/#Undisputed_Facts_Considered_by_the_Court\" >Undisputed Facts Considered by the Court<\/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-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/#Comparison_of_the_Competing_Trademarks\" >Comparison of the Competing Trademarks<\/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-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/#Polaroid_Factors_Applied_by_the_Court\" >Polaroid Factors Applied by the Court<\/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\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/#Important_Precedents_Relied_Upon\" >Important Precedents Relied Upon<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/#Principle_from_Vishnudas_Trading\" >Principle from Vishnudas Trading<\/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-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/#Well-Known_Trademark_Analysis\" >Well-Known Trademark Analysis<\/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-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/#Honest_Concurrent_Use\" >Honest Concurrent Use<\/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-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/#Issue_Estoppel_Observation\" >Issue Estoppel Observation<\/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-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/#Final_Decision_of_the_Court\" >Final Decision of the Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/#Supreme_Court_Final_Ruling\" >Supreme Court Final Ruling<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/#Point_of_Law_Settled\" >Point of Law Settled<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-18\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/#Key_Legal_Principles_Established\" >Key Legal Principles Established<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-19\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/#Important_Takeaways_from_the_Judgement\" >Important Takeaways from the Judgement<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-20\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/#Why_This_Judgement_Is_Important\" >Why This Judgement Is Important<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-21\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/#Case_Details_and_Citation\" >Case Details and Citation<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-22\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/#Quick_Reference_Summary\" >Quick Reference Summary<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-23\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/#Landmark_Principles_Emerging_from_the_Decision\" >Landmark Principles Emerging from the Decision<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-24\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/#Important_Cases_Referred\" >Important Cases Referred<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-25\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/#Conclusion\" >Conclusion<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-26\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/#Key_Takeaways\" >Key Takeaways<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The judgement is significant not only for trademark owners and businesses but also for legal practitioners and intellectual property professionals because it clarifies that trademark protection cannot be stretched beyond reasonable limits merely because a mark has acquired a reputation in relation to specific goods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-factual-and-procedural-background\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_and_Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Factual and Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The dispute arose between Nandhini Deluxe, a restaurant business operating under the mark &#8220;NANDHINI&#8221;, and Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. (KMF), a well-known cooperative federation engaged in the manufacture and sale of milk and milk products under the mark &#8220;NANDINI&#8221;.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">KMF adopted and began using the trademark &#8220;NANDINI&#8221; in 1985 for milk and dairy products. Over time, the mark became widely known in Karnataka, and several registrations were obtained in different classes relating to dairy products and allied goods. The federation also invested heavily in the promotion and marketing of its products.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Nandhini Deluxe adopted the mark &#8220;NANDHINI&#8221; in 1989 for its restaurant business. Subsequently, it applied for registration of the mark in respect of various food-related products falling in Classes 29 and 30 of the Trade Marks Act. KMF opposed these applications on the ground that &#8220;NANDHINI&#8221; was deceptively similar to its registered trademark &#8220;NANDINI&#8221; and was likely to cause confusion among consumers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks examined the matter and concluded that the applicant had honestly and concurrently used the mark since 1989. The Registrar observed that the parties were dealing in different goods and that there was insufficient evidence of actual confusion. Registration was therefore permitted, subject to deletion of &#8220;milk and milk products&#8221; from the specification of goods claimed by Nandhini Deluxe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">KMF challenged this decision before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). In one round of litigation, the IPAB relied upon the Supreme Court decision in <em>Vishnudas Trading v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd<\/em> and held that a proprietor dealing only in specific goods could not claim a monopoly over all goods falling within a broad class.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">However, in another set of appeals decided on 4 October 2011, the IPAB took a different view. It held that &#8220;NANDINI&#8221; had acquired distinctiveness and reputation and that registration of &#8220;NANDHINI&#8221; could create confusion among consumers. Consequently, it allowed KMF&#8217;s appeals and set aside the Registrar&#8217;s decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Nandhini Deluxe challenged the IPAB&#8217;s order before the Karnataka High Court. The High Court upheld the IPAB&#8217;s reasoning. Aggrieved by this decision, Nandhini Deluxe approached the Supreme Court through Civil Appeal Nos. 2937-2942 and 2943-2944 of 2018.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-procedural-history-at-a-glance\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_History_at_a_Glance\"><\/span>Procedural History at a Glance<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Stage<\/th><th>Proceedings<\/th><th>Outcome<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>1<\/td><td>Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks<\/td><td>Registration allowed, excluding milk and milk products.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>2<\/td><td>Intellectual Property Appellate Board (First Round)<\/td><td>Applied <em>Vishnudas Trading<\/em>; recognised a limited monopoly over specific goods.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>3<\/td><td>IPAB (Second Round)<\/td><td>Allowed KMF&#8217;s appeals and refused registration.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>4<\/td><td>Karnataka High Court<\/td><td>Upheld the IPAB decision.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>5<\/td><td>Supreme Court of India<\/td><td>Appeals filed by Nandhini Deluxe.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-dispute-before-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Dispute_Before_the_Court\"><\/span>Dispute Before the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The principal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the trademark &#8220;NANDHINI&#8221; sought to be registered by the appellant was deceptively similar to the respondent&#8217;s registered trademark &#8220;NANDINI&#8221; and whether such registration was prohibited under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court was also required to determine whether the respondent&#8217;s reputation in relation to milk and milk products entitled it to prevent registration of a similar mark in relation to other food products and restaurant-related goods. Another important question was whether the respondent could claim exclusive rights over all goods falling within the same trademark classes despite using the mark primarily for dairy products.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Nandhini Deluxe argued that the goods and services of the parties were fundamentally different, that it had honestly used the mark since 1989, and that the word &#8220;NANDHINI&#8221; was a common religious and mythological expression not capable of exclusive appropriation. KMF, on the other hand, contended that &#8220;NANDINI&#8221; had become a well-known trademark and that registration of &#8220;NANDHINI&#8221; would mislead consumers into believing that the appellant&#8217;s goods originated from or were associated with KMF.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-key-issues-before-the-supreme-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Issues_Before_the_Supreme_Court\"><\/span>Key Issues Before the Supreme Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Whether the mark <strong>&#8220;NANDHINI&#8221;<\/strong> was deceptively similar to the registered trademark <strong>&#8220;NANDINI&#8221;<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether registration of the appellant&#8217;s mark was barred under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether a reputed trademark owner could prevent registration of a similar mark for different goods and services.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether exclusive trademark rights extend to every product within an entire trademark class.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether honest concurrent use since 1989 justified registration of the appellant&#8217;s trademark.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Continued in Part 2: Reasoning and Analysis of the Supreme Court.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-reasoning-and-analysis-of-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Reasoning and Analysis of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court undertook a detailed examination of Sections 11, 12 and 18 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the principles governing deceptive similarity and trademark protection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court first identified several undisputed facts. It noted that KMF was the prior user, having adopted &#8220;NANDINI&#8221; in 1985, whereas Nandhini Deluxe adopted &#8220;NANDHINI&#8221; in 1989. However, the Court also observed that Nandhini Deluxe had continuously used the mark for many years before seeking registration. The Court further emphasised that the goods of the parties were materially different. While KMF dealt in milk and dairy products, Nandhini Deluxe operated restaurants and sought registration for various food items used in connection with its restaurant business. Moreover, Nandhini Deluxe had already abandoned its claim relating to milk and milk products.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-undisputed-facts-considered-by-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Undisputed_Facts_Considered_by_the_Court\"><\/span>Undisputed Facts Considered by the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Issue<\/th><th>Court&#8217;s Finding<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Prior User<\/td><td>KMF adopted &#8220;NANDINI&#8221; in 1985.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Appellant&#8217;s Adoption<\/td><td>Nandhini Deluxe adopted &#8220;NANDHINI&#8221; in 1989.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Nature of Business<\/td><td>KMF dealt in milk and dairy products, whereas Nandhini Deluxe operated restaurants.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Concurrent Use<\/td><td>The appellant had continuously used the mark for several years.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Milk Products<\/td><td>The appellant had abandoned its claim relating to milk and milk products.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court carefully compared the rival marks. It observed that although there was phonetic similarity between &#8220;NANDINI&#8221; and &#8220;NANDHINI&#8221;, the marks had to be examined in their entirety. The appellant&#8217;s mark consisted of &#8220;NANDHINI DELUXE&#8221;, accompanied by a lamp device and the slogan &#8220;the real spice of life&#8221;, whereas the respondent used &#8220;NANDINI&#8221; with a cow logo. The visual appearance, trade dress, and overall commercial impression were significantly different. The Court concluded that the marks were not deceptively similar when viewed as a whole.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-comparison-of-the-competing-trademarks\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Comparison_of_the_Competing_Trademarks\"><\/span>Comparison of the Competing Trademarks<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Factor<\/th><th>NANDINI (KMF)<\/th><th>NANDHINI DELUXE<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Business<\/td><td>Milk and dairy products<\/td><td>Restaurant business<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Trademark<\/td><td>NANDINI<\/td><td>NANDHINI DELUXE<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Logo<\/td><td>Cow logo<\/td><td>Lamp device<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Slogan<\/td><td>Not discussed<\/td><td>&#8220;the real spice of life&#8221;<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Overall Impression<\/td><td>Different commercial identity<\/td><td>Different commercial identity<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court relied upon the principles laid down in <em>Polaroid Corporation v. Polarad Electronics Corporation, 182 F. Supp. 350 (1960)<\/em>, which emphasize factors such as strength of the mark, similarity of marks, proximity of goods, likelihood of expansion, evidence of actual confusion, good faith adoption, and consumer sophistication. Applying these factors, the Court found no substantial likelihood of confusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-polaroid-factors-applied-by-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Polaroid_Factors_Applied_by_the_Court\"><\/span>Polaroid Factors Applied by the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Strength of the trademark.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Similarity of the competing marks.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Proximity of the goods and services.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Likelihood of business expansion.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Evidence of actual consumer confusion.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Good-faith adoption of the mark.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Consumer sophistication.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court also referred to <em>Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73<\/em>, a leading Indian authority on deceptive similarity, as well as <em>Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd. v. Allied Blender and Distillers Pvt. Ltd., (2015) 221 DLT 359<\/em>, and the American decision in <em>Polaroid<\/em>. These authorities were cited in the context of determining the likelihood of confusion and assessing competing trademarks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-important-precedents-relied-upon\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Important_Precedents_Relied_Upon\"><\/span>Important Precedents Relied Upon<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Case<\/th><th>Principle<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td><em>Polaroid Corporation v. Polarad Electronics Corporation (1960)<\/em><\/td><td>Likelihood of confusion test.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><em>Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.<\/em><\/td><td>Indian principles governing deceptive similarity.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><em>Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd. v. Allied Blender and Distillers Pvt. Ltd.<\/em><\/td><td>Assessment of competing trademarks.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A major aspect of the judgement was the Court&#8217;s reliance on <em>Vishnudas Trading v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd., (1997) 4 SCC 201<\/em>. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that a trademark proprietor cannot claim monopoly over an entire class of goods merely because registration exists in that class. Where a proprietor uses the mark only for specific goods and has no bona fide intention to use it for all goods in the class, exclusive rights must be confined accordingly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-principle-from-vishnudas-trading\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Principle_from_Vishnudas_Trading\"><\/span>Principle from Vishnudas Trading<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>A registered proprietor cannot automatically claim monopoly over every product in a trademark class.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Exclusive rights depend upon the actual use of the trademark.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Bona fide intention to use the mark remains an important consideration.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Trademark protection must correspond with the proprietor&#8217;s actual business.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court also examined the argument that &#8220;NANDINI&#8221; was a well-known trademark under Section 11(2) of the Trade Marks Act. Referring to <em>Nestle India Ltd. v. Mood Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 42 PTC 514 (Del) (DB)<\/em>, the Court noted that additional requirements must be satisfied before protection available to a well-known mark can be extended to dissimilar goods. The Court found that these requirements had not been established. There was no evidence that the appellant had adopted the mark to take unfair advantage of the respondent&#8217;s reputation or that use of &#8220;NANDHINI&#8221; for the appellant&#8217;s goods would damage the distinctiveness of the respondent&#8217;s mark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-well-known-trademark-analysis\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Well-Known_Trademark_Analysis\"><\/span>Well-Known Trademark Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court found that the statutory requirements for extending protection to dissimilar goods under Section 11(2) of the Trade Marks Act had not been established. It held that there was no evidence that the appellant sought to obtain an unfair advantage from the respondent&#8217;s reputation or that the respondent&#8217;s trademark would suffer detriment through the appellant&#8217;s use of the mark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court further observed that the appellant&#8217;s adoption of the mark dated back to 1989 and appeared to be a case of honest concurrent use rather than an attempt to exploit the respondent&#8217;s goodwill. The absence of evidence showing consumer confusion weighed heavily against the respondent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-honest-concurrent-use\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Honest_Concurrent_Use\"><\/span>Honest Concurrent Use<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Adoption of the mark dated back to 1989.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>No evidence of dishonest adoption.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>No proof of consumer confusion.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>No attempt to exploit KMF&#8217;s goodwill.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Another noteworthy aspect of the judgement was the Court&#8217;s observation that the IPAB had ignored its own earlier decision rendered between the same parties on a substantially similar issue. The Court noted that principles of issue estoppel could arguably apply, referring to <em>Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar, (2005) 1 SCC 787<\/em> and <em>Hope Plantations Ltd. v. Taluk Land Board, (1999) 5 SCC 590<\/em>. Although the Court did not decide the matter solely on that ground, it acknowledged the force of the appellant&#8217;s contention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-issue-estoppel-observation\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Issue_Estoppel_Observation\"><\/span>Issue Estoppel Observation<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court observed that the IPAB had departed from its earlier decision involving the same parties on a substantially similar issue. While the Court did not dispose of the appeal solely on this basis, it acknowledged that the appellant&#8217;s argument based on issue estoppel carried considerable force.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Continued in Part 3: Final Decision of the Court and Point of Law Settled.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-final-decision-of-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Final Decision of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court held that the orders of the IPAB and the Karnataka High Court were legally unsustainable. It concluded that the marks, when considered in their entirety, were not deceptively similar and that registration of &#8220;NANDHINI&#8221; in respect of the appellant&#8217;s goods would not cause confusion or deception among consumers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the orders of the IPAB and the High Court, and restored the order of the Deputy Registrar granting registration in favour of Nandhini Deluxe. However, the registration remained subject to the condition that the appellant would not obtain registration in respect of milk and milk products, which had already been excluded from its claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-supreme-court-final-ruling\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Supreme_Court_Final_Ruling\"><\/span>Supreme Court Final Ruling<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Issue<\/th><th>Supreme Court&#8217;s Decision<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Orders of IPAB<\/td><td>Set aside.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Karnataka High Court Judgement<\/td><td>Set aside.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Deputy Registrar&#8217;s Order<\/td><td>Restored.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Registration of &#8220;NANDHINI&#8221;<\/td><td>Allowed.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Milk and Milk Products<\/td><td>Excluded from the registration.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-point-of-law-settled\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Point_of_Law_Settled\"><\/span>Point of Law Settled<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The judgement establishes that trademark protection cannot automatically extend to every product falling within a broad class of goods merely because the proprietor owns a registered mark in that class. Courts must examine the actual nature of the goods, the manner of trade, the visual and phonetic features of the competing marks, and the realistic likelihood of consumer confusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The decision further clarifies that even where a trademark enjoys considerable reputation, protection under Section 11(2) of the Trade Marks Act cannot be extended to dissimilar goods unless the statutory requirements relating to reputation, unfair advantage, and detriment are clearly established. The ruling reinforces the principle that honest concurrent use and differences in business activities remain important considerations in trademark registration disputes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-key-legal-principles-established\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Legal_Principles_Established\"><\/span>Key Legal Principles Established<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Trademark registration does not automatically confer monopoly over every product within an entire class of goods.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Courts must evaluate the actual nature of the goods and services involved before determining deceptive similarity.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Likelihood of consumer confusion remains the central test in trademark infringement and registration disputes.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Visual appearance, trade dress, commercial impression, and surrounding circumstances must be considered along with phonetic similarity.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>A well-known trademark is not entitled to protection for dissimilar goods unless the statutory requirements under Section 11(2) of the Trade Marks Act are satisfied.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Honest concurrent use continues to be a significant factor while considering registration of competing trademarks.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Absence of evidence of actual consumer confusion can weigh heavily in favour of the applicant.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Trademark rights must correspond to the proprietor&#8217;s actual commercial use and bona fide intention to use the mark.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-important-takeaways-from-the-judgement\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Important_Takeaways_from_the_Judgement\"><\/span>Important Takeaways from the Judgement<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Legal Issue<\/th><th>Principle Established<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Trademark Monopoly<\/td><td>No monopoly over an entire trademark class merely because registration exists.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Deceptive Similarity<\/td><td>Marks must be compared as a whole and not merely on phonetic resemblance.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Different Goods and Services<\/td><td>The nature of goods and business activities is an important factor in determining confusion.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Well-Known Trademark<\/td><td>Additional statutory requirements must be fulfilled before extending protection to dissimilar goods.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Concurrent Use<\/td><td>Honest concurrent use remains a relevant consideration under the Trade Marks Act.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Consumer Confusion<\/td><td>Realistic likelihood of confusion\u2014not theoretical possibility\u2014is the governing test.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-why-this-judgement-is-important\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Why_This_Judgement_Is_Important\"><\/span>Why This Judgement Is Important<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Clarifies the limits of trademark protection under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Reaffirms the principle laid down in <em>Vishnudas Trading v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. <\/em>Ltd.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Explains the application of Section 11(2) to well-known trademarks.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Provides guidance on assessing deceptive similarity and likelihood of confusion.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Protects honest concurrent users while balancing the rights of established trademark owners.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Serves as a leading precedent for trademark registration disputes involving similar marks used for different goods and services.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Continued in Part 4: Case Details, Citation Table, and SEO-Friendly Conclusion.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-case-details-and-citation\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details_and_Citation\"><\/span>Case Details and Citation<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Title of the Case<\/th><td><em>Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.<\/em><\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Date of Judgement\/Order<\/th><td>26 July 2018<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Case Number<\/th><td>Civil Appeal Nos. 2937-2942 and 2943-2944 of 2018<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Neutral Citation<\/th><td>(2018) 9 SCALE 202<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Name of Court<\/th><td>Supreme Court of India<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Coram<\/th><td>A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ.<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Written By<\/th><td>Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor (Patent and Trademark Attorney), High Court of Delhi<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-quick-reference-summary\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Quick_Reference_Summary\"><\/span>Quick Reference Summary<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Topic<\/th><th>Summary<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Primary Issue<\/td><td>Whether &#8220;NANDHINI&#8221; was deceptively similar to the registered trademark &#8220;NANDINI&#8221;.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Main Statutory Provisions<\/td><td>Sections 11, 12 and 18 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Principal Question<\/td><td>Whether trademark protection extends to different goods within the same trademark class.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Key Finding<\/td><td>The competing goods, business activities and overall commercial impression were materially different.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Result<\/td><td>Appeals allowed and registration restored in favour of Nandhini Deluxe.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Restriction<\/td><td>Registration excluded milk and milk products.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-landmark-principles-emerging-from-the-decision\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Landmark_Principles_Emerging_from_the_Decision\"><\/span>Landmark Principles Emerging from the Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Registration of a trademark does not automatically create exclusive rights over every product within a trademark class.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Trademark disputes must be decided by considering the overall commercial impression created by the competing marks.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Phonetic similarity alone is not sufficient to establish deceptive similarity.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The nature of the goods, the class of consumers, the manner of trade and surrounding circumstances remain crucial factors.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Honest concurrent use continues to receive protection under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Protection available to well-known trademarks under Section 11(2) cannot automatically extend to dissimilar goods.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Evidence of actual consumer confusion remains an important consideration while assessing the likelihood of confusion.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Trademark law seeks to balance protection of goodwill with fair competition in the marketplace.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-important-cases-referred\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Important_Cases_Referred\"><\/span>Important Cases Referred<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Case<\/th><th>Legal Principle<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td><em>Vishnudas Trading v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd.<\/em>, (1997) 4 SCC 201<\/td><td>No monopoly over an entire class of goods merely because registration exists.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><em>Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.<\/em>, (2001) 5 SCC 73<\/td><td>Indian test for deceptive similarity.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><em>Polaroid Corporation v. Polarad Electronics Corporation<\/em>, 182 F. Supp. 350 (1960)<\/td><td>Likelihood of confusion factors.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><em>Nestle India Ltd v. Mood Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.<\/em>, (2010) 42 PTC 514 (Del) (DB)<\/td><td>Protection of well-known trademarks for dissimilar goods.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><em>Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd. v. Allied Blender and Distillers Pvt. Ltd.<\/em>, (2015) 221 DLT 359<\/td><td>Assessment of competing trademarks.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><em>Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar<\/em>, (2005) 1 SCC 787<\/td><td>Issue estoppel.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><em>Hope Plantations Ltd. v. Taluk Land Board<\/em>, (1999) 5 SCC 590<\/td><td>Issue estoppel and finality of litigation.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-conclusion\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conclusion\"><\/span>Conclusion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The decision of the Supreme Court in <em>Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.<\/em> is an important authority on the limits of trademark protection under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It reinforces that trademark law protects commercial goodwill without granting an unrestricted monopoly over every product falling within a broad statutory class. While reputation is an important factor, courts must ultimately assess the nature of the competing goods, the overall commercial impression created by the marks, the surrounding circumstances and the realistic likelihood of consumer confusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The judgment also strengthens the principles governing honest concurrent use, clarifies the scope of protection available to well-known trademarks under Section 11(2), and reaffirms that exclusive trademark rights must correspond to the proprietor&#8217;s actual business and bona fide commercial use. As a result, the decision continues to serve as a leading precedent in Indian trademark jurisprudence for disputes involving similar marks used for different goods and services.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-key-takeaways\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Takeaways\"><\/span>Key Takeaways<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Trademark registration does not automatically confer rights over every product within an entire class.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The likelihood of consumer confusion remains the cornerstone of trademark law.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Marks must be compared as a whole rather than on phonetic similarity alone.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Different business activities and different goods can significantly reduce the likelihood of deception.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Well-known trademark protection has statutory limits.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Honest concurrent use remains a significant safeguard under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The judgement is a leading authority on balancing trademark exclusivity with fair market competition.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-yoast-seo-related-links yoast-seo-related-links\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-vs-kmfp-trademark-case-analysis-2018\/\">Nandhini Deluxe vs KMFP Case Analysis (2018) \u2013 Trademark Law, Section 11 &amp; Consumer Confusion Explained<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/identical-stylization-triggers-deceptive-similarity-despite-dissimilar-goods\/\">Identical Stylization Triggers Deceptive Similarity Despite Dissimilar Goods<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fssai-registration-for-milk-and-dairy-products-india\/\">FSSAI Registration for Milk and Milk Products in India<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/food-adulteration-india-fssai-food-safety-laws-reforms\/\">Food Adulteration in India: Legal Challenges, FSSAI Failures, Constitutional Rights and Technology-Driven Reforms<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/safeguarding-the-plate-an-in-depth-examination-of-the-food-safety-and-standards-act-2006-in-india\/\">Safeguarding the Plate: An In-Depth Examination of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 in India<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.: Trademark Protection Beyond Product Classes The decision of the Supreme Court in Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. is one of the most important trademark judgements in India, dealing with the scope of protection available to a registered trademark when similar marks are<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","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,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[5873],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27611","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-trademark-law"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.9 (Yoast SEO v28.0) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.: Supreme Court on Trademark Protection Beyond Product Classes - Legal Service India - Articles<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Nandhini Deluxe case explained: Supreme Court clarifies trademark monopoly, deceptive similarity and protection beyond product classes.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.: Supreme Court on Trademark Protection Beyond Product Classes\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Nandhini Deluxe case explained: Supreme Court clarifies trademark monopoly, deceptive similarity and protection beyond product classes.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Legal Service India - Articles\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-16T05:40:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-16T05:45:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305\"},\"headline\":\"Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.: Supreme Court on Trademark Protection Beyond Product Classes\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-16T05:40:39+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-16T05:45:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":3158,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Trademark Laws\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\\\/\",\"name\":\"Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.: Supreme Court on Trademark Protection Beyond Product Classes - Legal Service India - Articles\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-16T05:40:39+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-16T05:45:14+00:00\",\"description\":\"Nandhini Deluxe case explained: Supreme Court clarifies trademark monopoly, deceptive similarity and protection beyond product classes.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Trademark Laws > Can a Trademark Owner Claim Monopoly Over an Entire Product Class? Supreme Court Explains in Nandhini Deluxe Case\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India - Law Articles\",\"description\":\"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"width\":105,\"height\":95,\"caption\":\"Legal Service India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/legalservicesind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legalserviceind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.youtube.com\\\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305\",\"name\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"url\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"contentUrl\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"caption\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\"},\"description\":\"Professional and Literary Profile Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate, is an alumnus of the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, with over 20 years of experience in IP litigation before the Delhi High Court. He currently serves as a Patent and Trademark Attorney at United &amp; United, a leading intellectual property law firm. Deeply committed to legal scholarship, he has authored more than 900 articles on intellectual property law, published on major platforms including Legal Service India, Bar &amp; Bench, Live Law, SCC Online Blog, Legal Desire, SpicyIP, among others. Beyond his legal practice, he is also an accomplished writer and poet, with over 1,500 literary works and more than 20 books published in Hindi and English. His journey reflects a unique blend of legal advocacy and creative expression, inspired by a passion for justice, knowledge, and reform.\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/author\\\/ajayamitabhsuman\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.: Supreme Court on Trademark Protection Beyond Product Classes - Legal Service India - Articles","description":"Nandhini Deluxe case explained: Supreme Court clarifies trademark monopoly, deceptive similarity and protection beyond product classes.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.: Supreme Court on Trademark Protection Beyond Product Classes","og_description":"Nandhini Deluxe case explained: Supreme Court clarifies trademark monopoly, deceptive similarity and protection beyond product classes.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/","og_site_name":"Legal Service India - Articles","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","article_published_time":"2026-07-16T05:40:39+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-07-16T05:45:14+00:00","author":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legalserviceind","twitter_site":"@legalserviceind","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/"},"author":{"name":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305"},"headline":"Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.: Supreme Court on Trademark Protection Beyond Product Classes","datePublished":"2026-07-16T05:40:39+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-16T05:45:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/"},"wordCount":3158,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Trademark Laws"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/","name":"Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.: Supreme Court on Trademark Protection Beyond Product Classes - Legal Service India - Articles","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-07-16T05:40:39+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-16T05:45:14+00:00","description":"Nandhini Deluxe case explained: Supreme Court clarifies trademark monopoly, deceptive similarity and protection beyond product classes.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nandhini-deluxe-v-kmf-trademark-protection-beyond-product-classes\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Trademark Laws > Can a Trademark Owner Claim Monopoly Over an Entire Product Class? Supreme Court Explains in Nandhini Deluxe Case"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","name":"Legal Service India - Law Articles","description":"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization","name":"Legal Service India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","width":105,"height":95,"caption":"Legal Service India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","https:\/\/x.com\/legalserviceind","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305","name":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","url":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","contentUrl":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","caption":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN"},"description":"Professional and Literary Profile Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate, is an alumnus of the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, with over 20 years of experience in IP litigation before the Delhi High Court. He currently serves as a Patent and Trademark Attorney at United &amp; United, a leading intellectual property law firm. Deeply committed to legal scholarship, he has authored more than 900 articles on intellectual property law, published on major platforms including Legal Service India, Bar &amp; Bench, Live Law, SCC Online Blog, Legal Desire, SpicyIP, among others. Beyond his legal practice, he is also an accomplished writer and poet, with over 1,500 literary works and more than 20 books published in Hindi and English. His journey reflects a unique blend of legal advocacy and creative expression, inspired by a passion for justice, knowledge, and reform.","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/author\/ajayamitabhsuman\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27611","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=27611"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27611\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":28006,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27611\/revisions\/28006"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27611"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27611"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27611"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}