KRBL’s India Gate Triumph: Leveraging ‘Idea Infringement’ to Secure Victory

By Titiksha Sinha and Khushboo Jahan

In a significant legal achievement for KRBL Limited, the Delhi High Court recently ruled in favor of the company in a trade marks dispute involving its iconic trade mark/brand “India Gate” and the trade mark “Bharat Gate“. This ruling, while overturning the order of commercial court dated January 9, 2024 and restoring its ad interim order dated October 10, 2020, barred the use of “Bharat Gate” due to its deceptive similarity to KRBL’s globally recognized rice brand “India Gate”.

Background of the Case

• The Appellant, KRBL Limited, a renowned rice miller and the registered proprietor of the trade mark “India Gate” since 1993, filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the Respondents for marketing rice under the name “Bharat Gate” before the Commercial Court on the grounds of (1) infringement of its well-known trade mark ‘India Gate’ under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999; and (2) passing off its product as the product of KRBL. Illustrative image of the products given below-

 

• In 2020, an ex parte ad interim injunction was granted in favor of the Appellant and the Respondents were restrained from using the trade mark “Bharat Gate” with respect to rice or any related product.
• Thereafter, upon the final adjudication, the Commercial Court overturned its order dated October 10, 2020, and held that the competing marks are distinct in features including color (green v. red), design, pricing and class of consumers. Therefore, bearing no phonetic or visual similarity and there is no scope of confusion between the two. The Court also noted that the terms “India” and “Bharat” are publici juris and the same cannot be monopolized. The Court further held that India Gate is a national monument, and not the personal property of anyone.

Rationale

The Delhi High Court, led by a Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul, overturned the order of the Commercial Court dated January 09, 2024. While applying the Triple Identity test, the Court concluded that:

1. Both “India” and “Bharat” convey the same meaning, and therefore, the marks INDIA GATE and BHARAT GATE are phonetically similar.
2. Additionally, they have been filed and used for the same goods i.e., rice, which caters to the same consumer segment.
3. The Respondent has also blatantly copied the most distinguishing visual element of the Appellant’s mark, i.e., India Gate. The presence of other elements such as the image of Taj Mahal is immaterial as other visual dissimilarities would not make any difference to the aspect of infringement.
4. Therefore, the use of the ‘India Gate’ figure on their packaging has been malafidely carved as a deliberate attempt to mislead consumers of average intelligence and imperfect recollection into associating their product with KRBL’s well-established brand/trade mark ‘India Gate’.
5. The argument that “Bharat” is a synonym of “India” is flawed as the mark “Bharat Gate” lacked an independent meaning and appeared to be a deformed synonym of “India Gate” reinforcing the inference of deliberate mala fide deception. Therefore, the issue of publici juris has to be examined by considered the mark as a whole vis-à-vis the goods in respect of which the mark is used. Therefore, INDIA GATE cannot be regarded as public juris when used for rice.

The Court reiterated that “Confusion” again, need not extrapole, in every case, to the consumer mistaking one mark for the other. It is enough, as Section 29(4) itself clarifies, if the similarity between the marks conveys an impression of “association” between them, to the mind of such a consumer.  Therefore, all that is needed is “initial interest confusion” i.e., idea infringement.

Thus, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the respondents have, in fact, with clear intent to capitalize on the Appellant’s well-established goodwill and reputation, malafidely adopted a mark which is highly deceptive to the Appellant’s registered trade mark ‘India Gate’.

Implications

1. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court to uphold KRBL’s trademark rights and grant a permanent injunction against the use of “Bharat Gate” sets a precedent for similar cases in the future.
2. The said decision highlights that infringement of an “idea” is sufficient and the initial interest confusion has to be taken into consideration, instead of focusing on the dissimilarities.
3. It reaffirms the importance of safeguarding the well-known marks against the parasitic imitation by the infringers and ensuring that consumers are not misled by deceptive branding practices.

By protecting the integrity of its trade mark/brand “India Gate”, KRBL continues to uphold its reputation as a trusted name in the rice industry.

(KRBL Limited v. Praveen Kumar Buyyani, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 198)