The case at hand involves a dispute between a plaintiff claiming ownership over
the registered mark 'Biryani King' and a defendant using a deceptively similar
mark, 'Biryani King XXXL'. The central issue revolves around whether the
defendant's use of the mark infringes upon the plaintiff's established rights.
Under trademark law, the proprietor of a registered trademark enjoys exclusive
rights to use the mark in relation to the goods or services for which it is
registered. The primary objective is to prevent consumer confusion and protect
the reputation and distinctiveness of established brands.
Comparison of Marks:
Upon a visual and phonetic comparison, it is evident that the marks 'Biryani
King' and 'Biryani King XXXL' share substantial similarities. The addition of 'XXXL'
does not sufficiently distinguish the defendant's mark from the plaintiff's
registered mark. Such similarity is likely to cause confusion among consumers,
leading them to believe that the goods originate from the same source or are
affiliated in some manner.
Similarity of Goods:
Another critical aspect is the similarity of goods for which the marks are used.
Both parties are involved in the sale of rice. The overlapping nature of the
goods amplifies the likelihood of confusion among consumers. Courts often
consider the relatedness of goods or services when determining the likelihood of
confusion, and in this instance, the similarity in goods strengthens the
Ex Parte Ad Interim Injunction:
An ex parte ad interim injunction is a provisional remedy granted to a party
before a full trial on the merits. In the present case, the court found that the
plaintiff had demonstrated a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The
nearly identical marks used in relation to similar goods created a strong
presumption of likelihood of confusion, warranting immediate injunctive relief
to prevent further harm to the plaintiff's rights and potential damage to
The Concluding Note:
In light of the foregoing analysis, the court's decision to grant an ex parte ad
interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff appears to be well-founded. The
substantial similarities between the marks and the relatedness of goods
establish a compelling case for trademark infringement. This case underscores
the significance of protecting intellectual property rights and preventing
consumer deception in the marketplace.
The Case Law Discussed:
Case Title: JRPL Riceland Vs Neeraj Mittal
Date of Judgement/Order:04.01.2024
Case No. CS(COMM) 943/2023
Neutral Citation: NA
Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Anish Dayal, H.J.
Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation expressed
herein are being shared in the public Interest. Readers' discretion is advised
as these are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in
perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
, IP Adjutor - Patent and
Email: [email protected]
, Ph no: 9990389539