{"id":8029,"date":"2025-09-06T05:25:05","date_gmt":"2025-09-06T05:25:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=8029"},"modified":"2025-09-06T05:30:41","modified_gmt":"2025-09-06T05:30:41","slug":"when-courts-wont-go-behind-trademark-registration","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/when-courts-wont-go-behind-trademark-registration\/","title":{"rendered":"When Courts Won&#8217;t Go Behind Trademark Registration"},"content":{"rendered":"<article>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Mangalam_Organics_Ltd_Vs_N_Ranga_Rao_And_Sons_Pvt_Ltd\"><\/span>Mangalam Organics Ltd Vs N Ranga Rao And Sons Pvt Ltd<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p class=\"muted\">Commercial IP Suit No. 194 of 2025 \u2014 Order Date: <strong>September 3, 2025<\/strong><\/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-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/when-courts-wont-go-behind-trademark-registration\/#Mangalam_Organics_Ltd_Vs_N_Ranga_Rao_And_Sons_Pvt_Ltd\" >Mangalam Organics Ltd Vs N Ranga Rao And Sons Pvt Ltd<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/when-courts-wont-go-behind-trademark-registration\/#Facts\" >Facts<\/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\/when-courts-wont-go-behind-trademark-registration\/#Dispute\" >Dispute<\/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\/when-courts-wont-go-behind-trademark-registration\/#Key_issues\" >Key issues<\/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\/when-courts-wont-go-behind-trademark-registration\/#Parties_contentions_summary\" >Parties&#8217; contentions (summary)<\/a><\/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\/when-courts-wont-go-behind-trademark-registration\/#Detailed_Reasoning\" >Detailed Reasoning<\/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\/when-courts-wont-go-behind-trademark-registration\/#On_maintainability_against_a_registered_proprietor\" >On maintainability against a registered proprietor<\/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\/when-courts-wont-go-behind-trademark-registration\/#On_validity_of_Defendants_registration\" >On validity of Defendant&#8217;s registration<\/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\/when-courts-wont-go-behind-trademark-registration\/#Comparing_marks\" >Comparing marks<\/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\/when-courts-wont-go-behind-trademark-registration\/#On_suppression\" >On suppression<\/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\/when-courts-wont-go-behind-trademark-registration\/#On_passing_off\" >On passing off<\/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\/when-courts-wont-go-behind-trademark-registration\/#Other_points\" >Other points<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/when-courts-wont-go-behind-trademark-registration\/#Decision\" >Decision<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/when-courts-wont-go-behind-trademark-registration\/#Case_details\" >Case details<\/a><\/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\/when-courts-wont-go-behind-trademark-registration\/#Disclaimer\" >Disclaimer<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<section class=\"section\" aria-labelledby=\"facts\">\n<h2 id=\"facts\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Facts\"><\/span>Facts<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The case involves <strong>Mangalam Organics Ltd<\/strong> (the Plaintiff), a company dealing in camphor-based products, suing <strong>N Ranga Rao And Sons Pvt Ltd<\/strong> (the Defendant), another company in the fragrance and sanitary products industry, for trademark infringement and passing off. The Plaintiff claimed it created the trademark <strong>&#8220;CAMPURE&#8221;<\/strong> (and its stylized logo) around March 2017 for camphor-related items like deodorants, air fresheners, soaps, hair products, and sanitary toiletries where camphor is the key ingredient. The Plaintiff registered this mark in Classes 3, 4, and 5 under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, with registrations dating back to 2017, and these remain valid.<\/p>\n<p>In 2014, the Plaintiff launched a unique cone-shaped camphor product under its <strong>&#8220;MANGALAM&#8221;<\/strong> brand, wrapped in non-woven fabric, and started using <strong>&#8220;CAMPURE&#8221;<\/strong> for this in 2017. In December 2022, the Plaintiff learned the Defendant might launch a similar cone-shaped product and sent a cease-and-desist notice. The Defendant replied, denying any trademark issues and noting the Plaintiff&#8217;s cone shape wasn&#8217;t uniquely registered. No such product appeared from the Defendant at that time.<\/p>\n<p>In July 2024, while checking trademark records, the Plaintiff discovered the Defendant&#8217;s registration for <strong>&#8220;AIR KARPURE&#8221;<\/strong> (No. 4732154, dated November 4, 2020, in Class 5, on a proposed-to-be-used basis) and similar device marks. The Defendant&#8217;s website (<code>www.karpure.in<\/code>) showed use of <strong>&#8220;AIR KARPURE&#8221;<\/strong> (with &#8220;AIR&#8221; in small font and &#8220;KARPURE&#8221; prominent) for camphor products like air fresheners, pouches, tablets, mosquito repellents, and personal care items. The Plaintiff filed for rectification\/cancellation of the Defendant&#8217;s mark on August 1, 2024, and the Defendant countered in January 2025, claiming adoption in 2020 and use since 2022.<\/p>\n<p>The Defendant, established in 1948 as a family business and incorporated in 2014, has well-known marks like <strong>&#8220;CYCLE&#8221;<\/strong> (recognized by courts) and uses taglines emphasizing &#8220;purity&#8221; (e.g., &#8220;Purity of Prayers&#8221;). It claimed <strong>&#8220;KARPURE&#8221;<\/strong> combines &#8220;Karpura&#8221; (Sanskrit for camphor) and &#8220;Pure,&#8221; adopted honestly in 2020. The Defendant has registrations in Classes 5 and 11, with sales of Rs. 479 lakhs in 2024-25 under the mark. It argued no infringement suit lies against a registered proprietor and accused the Plaintiff of concealing an opposition to its own &#8220;CAMPURE&#8221; registration by a third party (Lifestar Pharma for &#8220;CALAPURE&#8221;), where the Plaintiff had argued no monopoly over &#8220;PURE&#8221; and settled by restricting goods. The Defendant also claimed dissimilarity in marks and delay in the Plaintiff&#8217;s suit.<\/p>\n<p>In reply, the Plaintiff argued the Court could question the Defendant&#8217;s registration at the interim stage due to fraud (e.g., wrong class), similarity in marks as wholes, no estoppel from prior opposition (as &#8220;CALAPURE&#8221; was dissimilar), no delay (2022 notice was only for cone shape), and jurisdiction as products are sold online in Bombay.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"section\" aria-labelledby=\"dispute\">\n<h2 id=\"dispute\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Dispute\"><\/span>Dispute<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The main dispute was whether the Defendant&#8217;s <strong>&#8220;AIR KARPURE&#8221;\/&#8221;KARPURE&#8221;<\/strong> marks infringed the Plaintiff&#8217;s <strong>&#8220;CAMPURE&#8221;<\/strong> mark or amounted to passing off. The Plaintiff sought an interim injunction to stop the Defendant from using similar marks, logos, or domain names.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"section\" aria-labelledby=\"issues\">\n<h2 id=\"issues\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_issues\"><\/span>Key issues<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Similarity:<\/strong> Were the marks visually, phonetically, structurally, or conceptually similar enough to cause confusion?<\/li>\n<li><strong>Validity of Defendant&#8217;s Registration:<\/strong> Could the Court go behind the registration at the interim stage and find it invalid (e.g., ex facie illegal or fraudulent under Sections 9 and 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999)?<\/li>\n<li><strong>Infringement:<\/strong> Under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, does use by a registered proprietor constitute infringement?<\/li>\n<li><strong>Passing Off:<\/strong> Did the Plaintiff prove goodwill\/reputation by 2022, misrepresentation by the Defendant, and likely damage?<\/li>\n<li><strong>Suppression:<\/strong> Did the Plaintiff hide facts about its own prior opposition, leading to estoppel or denial of relief?<\/li>\n<li><strong>Delay\/Laches\/Acquiescence:<\/strong> Was the suit delayed after the 2022 notice?<\/li>\n<li><strong>Jurisdiction:<\/strong> Did the Bombay High Court have jurisdiction for passing off, given online sales?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"section\" aria-labelledby=\"arguments\">\n<h2 id=\"arguments\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Parties_contentions_summary\"><\/span>Parties&#8217; contentions (summary)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<dl>\n<dt>Plaintiff<\/dt>\n<dd>Argued phonetic similarity (&#8220;CAMPURE&#8221; vs &#8220;KARPURE&#8221;), copied capital &#8220;P,&#8221; similar goods\/channels, prior use since 2017, and fraud in Defendant&#8217;s Class 11 registration (for apparatus, but used for soaps).<\/dd>\n<dt>Defendant<\/dt>\n<dd>Countered with dissimilarity, honest adoption from Sanskrit and &#8220;pure&#8221; theme, no monopoly on &#8220;PURE,&#8221; valid registrations, no infringement against registered proprietors (Sections 28(3) and 30(2)(e)), suppression by Plaintiff, and no goodwill shown for 2022.<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"section\" aria-labelledby=\"reasoning\">\n<h2 id=\"reasoning\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Detailed_Reasoning\"><\/span>Detailed Reasoning<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Court began by noting this was an interim application for injunction in a trademark infringement and passing off suit. It summarized facts and submissions from both sides, citing various precedents.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"On_maintainability_against_a_registered_proprietor\"><\/span>On maintainability against a registered proprietor<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Since both parties are registered, no infringement remedy lies (citing <em>Corona Remedies Pvt Ltd vs Franco-Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd<\/em> and <em>S Syed Moideen vs Sulochana Bai<\/em>). The pleadings showed the Plaintiff relied on &#8220;deceptive similarity&#8221; from Section 29, but this doesn&#8217;t apply between registered proprietors.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"On_validity_of_Defendants_registration\"><\/span>On validity of Defendant&#8217;s registration<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Plaintiff challenged it under Sections 9(2)(a) (absolute grounds, e.g., deceptive marks) and 11 (relative grounds, e.g., similarity to earlier mark causing confusion). The Court noted registration confers exclusive rights if valid (Section 28), but between identical\/similar registered marks, no exclusive right against each other (Section 28(3)) and no infringement (Section 30(2)(e)). Citing <em>Lupin Ltd vs Johnson and Johnson<\/em> (Full Bench), the Court can question validity at interim stage only in exceptional cases where registration is ex facie illegal, fraudulent, or shocks the conscience\u2014not just an arguable case. The burden is heavy on the challenger.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Comparing_marks\"><\/span>Comparing marks<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Court reproduced rival marks and found no ex facie illegality. Plaintiff&#8217;s &#8220;CAMPURE&#8221; (block letters, tall &#8220;P&#8221; in elongated shape) vs Defendant&#8217;s &#8220;KARPURE&#8221; (cursive, flower &#8220;K,&#8221; contiguous &#8220;P&#8221;). Visual, structural, and artwork differences (e.g., no slurring &#8220;r&#8221; to &#8220;m&#8221;); phonetic dissimilarity; no confusion likely among educated consumers for these products. Defendant&#8217;s registration passed Sections 9\/11 scrutiny (no opposition from Plaintiff). No fraud shown\u2014Class 5 overlaps with Class 3 for fresheners\/deodorizers; classifications are administrative (citing <em>Allied Auto Accessories Ltd vs Allied Motors Pvt Ltd<\/em>). Honest adoption from &#8220;Karpura&#8221; +&#8221;Pure&#8221; (Defendant&#8217;s theme). Precedents like Pidilite cases (exact copying) didn&#8217;t apply here.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"On_suppression\"><\/span>On suppression<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Plaintiff hid opposition to its &#8220;CAMPURE&#8221; by third party (&#8220;CALAPURE&#8221;), where it argued no monopoly on &#8220;PURE&#8221; and settled by restricting goods. This is material; non-disclosure disentitles discretionary relief (citing <em>Phonepe Pvt Ltd vs Resilient Innovations Pvt Ltd<\/em>).<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"On_passing_off\"><\/span>On passing off<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Relevant date is Defendant&#8217;s adoption (2022). Plaintiff must prove goodwill\/reputation by then, misrepresentation, and damage. Sales figures\/ad expenses were for all camphor products since 2014, not specifically under &#8220;CAMPURE&#8221; for 2022\u2014no standalone proof of distinctive reputation. No specific pleading on which Defendant products pass off as Plaintiff&#8217;s (cone shape excluded). Packaging dissimilar (colors, look); no misrepresentation or confusion (citing <em>Ruston &amp; Hornsby Ltd vs Zamindara Engineering Co<\/em>; no delay defense as mere delay insufficient without acquiescence).<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Other_points\"><\/span>Other points<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>No delay\/laches (2022 notice was for cone shape); jurisdiction exists due to online sales in Bombay. But overall, no prima facie case for injunction.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"section\" aria-labelledby=\"decision\">\n<h2 id=\"decision\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Decision\"><\/span>Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Court dismissed the interim application, refusing the injunction. The Plaintiff failed to prove ex facie invalidity of Defendant&#8217;s registration or passing off. The Defendant can continue using its registered mark.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"section\" aria-labelledby=\"case-details\">\n<h2 id=\"case-details\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_details\"><\/span>Case details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p class=\"meta\"><strong>Case Title:<\/strong> Mangalam Organics Ltd Vs N Ranga Rao And Sons Pvt Ltd<\/p>\n<p class=\"meta\"><strong>Order Date:<\/strong> September 3, 2025<\/p>\n<p class=\"meta\"><strong>Case Number:<\/strong> Commercial IP Suit No. 194 of 2025<\/p>\n<p class=\"meta\"><strong>Neutral Citation:<\/strong> 2025:BHC-OS:14413<\/p>\n<p class=\"meta\"><strong>Name of Court:<\/strong> High Court of Judicature at Bombay<\/p>\n<p class=\"meta\"><strong>Name of Hon&#8217;ble Judge:<\/strong> Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"section\" aria-labelledby=\"disclaimer\">\n<h2 id=\"disclaimer\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Disclaimer\"><\/span>Disclaimer<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p class=\"note\">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<\/section>\n<footer><strong>Written By:<\/strong> Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi<\/p>\n<\/footer>\n<\/article>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Mangalam Organics Ltd Vs N Ranga Rao And Sons Pvt Ltd Commercial IP Suit No. 194 of 2025 \u2014 Order Date: September 3, 2025 Facts The case involves Mangalam Organics Ltd (the Plaintiff), a company dealing in camphor-based products, suing N Ranga Rao And Sons Pvt Ltd (the Defendant), another company in the fragrance and<\/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-8029","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\/8029","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=8029"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8029\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8029"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8029"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8029"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}