The Delhi High Court allowed an Appeal filed by KRBL Limited in a trademark dispute involving India Gate and Bharat Gate rice brands.

The Court was of the view that both the marks are phonetically similar in nature and hence, there is clear infringement of trademark.

A Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul observed, “… it is clear that the mark BHARAT GATE clearly infringes the mark INDIA GATE. Both are used for the same goods. They are phonetically similar. “Bharat” and “India” convey the same idea, Preambularly and otherwise. Both are used for rice. The triple identity test, too, therefore, stands satisfied.”

The Bench said that the deceptive similarity between the INDIA GATE and BHARAT GATE marks, as is likely to result in confusion or a presumption of association between the marks, is starkly apparent.

Advocate Anirudh Bakhru appeared on behalf of the Appellant while none appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Appellant was the registered owner of the trademark INDIA GATE, of which it has been using the mark since 1993 for rice. The Respondents also started dealing with rice under the name BHARAT GATE. In these circumstances, the Appellant approached the Commercial Court, seeking a permanent and mandatory injunction against the Respondents using the name BHARAT GATE apart from attendant reliefs, submitting that it amounted to infringement of the Appellant’s registered trademark ‘INDIA GATE’ under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

In 2020, the Commercial Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the Appellant and against the Respondents, restraining the Respondents from using the trademark ‘BHARAT GATE’ in respect of rice or any other associated or allied product. Thereafter, in 2024, the Application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), seeking interlocutory injunction against the Respondents was finally adjudicated. And the Commercial Court vacated the ad interim injunction granted by the Predecessor and dismissed the said Application. Challenging this, the Appellant was before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the above facts, noted, “It is settled – indeed, practically axiomatically by now – that the possibility of likelihood of confusion, for the purpose of trade mark infringement, has to be assessed from the perspective of a customer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection. … “Likelihood of confusion”, by a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, is all that is needed. “Confusion”, again, need not extrapolate, in every case, to the consumer mistaking one mark for the other.”

The Court further said that, not only is there phonetic similarity between the rival marks; the case is further one of blatant idea infringement, with, further, the most prominent visual feature of the Appellant’s mark, namely the India Gate, having been slavishly copied by the Respondent.

“India Gate” has a well-known and well-recognized connotation, being referable to one of our proudest national monuments, in the heart of the Delhi. This is underscored by the pictorial representation of the India Gate on the appellant’s package, accompanying the INDIA GATE mark. “Bharat Gate”, on the other hand, has no meaning whatsoever, except as a corrupted synonym of “India Gate”, it also remarked.

The Court observed that the usage, by the Respondent, of the figure of the India Gate prominently covering nearly the whole of the packing clearly indicates a deliberate attempt, by the Respondent, to deceive consumers into confusing the Respondent’s product with the Appellant’s and that the use of ‘Bharat’, a synonym for ‘India’ is merely a misguided attempt to avoid an allegation of slavish adoption.

“The case is, therefore, prima facie one of a mala fide and deliberate attempt to capitalize on the goodwill of the appellant. There is no conceivable explanation as to why the respondent used “BHARAT GATE” for rice where the appellant’s well-known mark “INDIA GATE” was already in existence. The reason can only be to capitalise on the appellant’s goodwill and ensure sales of the respondent’s product”, it added.

The Court reiterated that where there is, prima facie, a clear intent to copy and deceive, the Court would presume that the attempt is successful, rather than that it is not.

“The possibility of goods, widely differing in prices, being sold by the same manufacturer under different marks, depending on the perceived quality of the product is, therefore, a common trade reality, which the impugned order ignores. … In fact, as the product, in each case, was cooking rice, they catered to the same consumer segment, as already noted earlier in this judgment”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal and quashed the impugned Order.

Cause Title- KRBL Limited v. Praveen Kumar Buyyani & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:251-DB)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates Anirudh Bakhru, SK Bansal, Deepak Shrivastava, and Vijay C Rathi.

Click here to read/download the Judgment