Disclaimer

INDIA GATE Trademark Victory

Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of KRBL Limited in Trademark Dispute Over INDIA GATE and BHARAT GATE

The Delhi High Court has allowed an appeal filed by KRBL Limited in a trademark infringement dispute concerning the rice brands INDIA GATE and BHARAT GATE.

A Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul held that the marks are phonetically similar and that the use of BHARAT GATE constitutes clear trademark infringement. The Court observed that Bharat and India convey the same meaning and that the similarity between the two marks, when used for the same goods, satisfies the triple identity test. It further emphasized that the deceptive similarity between the marks is likely to create confusion or an assumption of association between them.

Background of the Case

KRBL Limited, the appellant, is the registered proprietor of the trademark INDIA GATE, which it has been using for rice since 1993. The respondent began selling rice under the name BHARAT GATE, prompting the appellant to approach the Commercial Court seeking a permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondent, arguing that the use of BHARAT GATE amounted to trademark infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

In 2020, the Commercial Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of the appellant, restraining the respondent from using the BHARAT GATE mark. However, in 2024, upon final adjudication of the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), the Commercial Court vacated the previously granted injunction and dismissed the application. Aggrieved by this, the appellant challenged the order before the High Court.

Court's Reasoning and Findings

The High Court reaffirmed the well-established principle that the likelihood of confusion in trademark infringement cases must be assessed from the standpoint of a consumer with average intelligence and imperfect recollection. It emphasized that likelihood of confusion does not necessarily require a consumer to mistake one mark for the other, but rather a possibility of association or deception.

The Court noted that the similarity between INDIA GATE and BHARAT GATE extends beyond phonetics, amounting to blatant idea infringement. Additionally, the most prominent visual element of INDIA GATE—a depiction of the historical India Gate monument—had been slavishly copied by the respondent. The Court observed that Bharat Gate has no independent meaning and serves only as a distorted synonym for India Gate, reinforcing the inference of deliberate deception.

It further held that the respondent's use of the India Gate figure on its packaging was a clear attempt to mislead consumers into believing that its product was associated with the appellant’s well-established brand. The Court ruled that the respondent’s use of BHARAT GATE was a mala fide attempt to capitalize on the goodwill and reputation of INDIA GATE, as no plausible explanation was provided for the adoption of the name.

The Bench also rejected the argument that differences in product pricing could mitigate consumer confusion, stating that it is common practice for manufacturers to sell products of varying qualities under different brand names. Since both brands catered to the same consumer base and dealt with identical goods—cooking rice—the likelihood of confusion was further strengthened.

Conclusion

In light of these findings, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Commercial Court’s order, and reinstated the injunction against the respondent from using the BHARAT GATE trademark. The Court reiterated that in cases where there is a clear intent to copy and deceive, it must be presumed that such an attempt has been successful unless proven otherwise