By Deepika Shrivastav and Tithi Aggarwal
Introduction
In a significant ruling on trademark protection, The Hon’ble Delhi High Court reaffirmed that a registered trademark can be infringed not only through identical or deceptively similar marks but also through translation of the mark into another language. On February 12, 2026, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Victoria Foods Private Limited v. Ashad Trading Co. & Ors. [CS(COMM) 135/2026] held that the using the English translation of the mark “Rajdhani” — namely, “Capital” for similar goods and services constitutes infringement of the registered trademark “Rajdhani”, as both expressions convey an identical meaning.
Background of the Dispute
The Plaintiff is the registered owner of the trademarks Rajdhani, 
,
used for a variety of food products such as atta, maida, sooji, dalia, pulses, rice, papad, poha, popcorn, seviyan (vermicelli), etc. It claims to have built substantial goodwill and market recognition through consistent efforts, significant advertising, and considerable financial investment. Additionally, the Plaintiff asserts ownership of the copyright in the original artistic work for its trade dress/packaging for its products and under Section 17(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957, it holds the exclusive right to safeguard its work against unauthorized use by third parties.
Whereas, Defendant No. 1 operates in the business of manufacturing and selling food products including various forms of pasta (whether cooked, uncooked, stuffed, or otherwise), such as spaghetti, macaroni, noodles, lasagna, gnocchi, ravioli, and cannelloni, along with bread, pastries, cakes, biscuits, wafers, and similar goods. Defendants No. 2, 3, and 4 are involved in the retail and wholesale trade of general grocery (kirana) items.
Following a market investigation, the Plaintiff learned that Defendant No. 1 was producing vermicelli, while Defendants No. 2 to 4 were distributing and selling it under the brand names TAJDHANI and CAPITAL, which is deceptively similar to Plaintiff’s trade name RAJDHANI.
The Plaintiff argued that the mark TAJDHANI is almost identical or, at the very least, deceptively similar to its registered trademark RAJDHANI. It further asserted that the mark CAPITAL effectively serves as the English equivalent of “Rajdhani”, thereby reinforcing the likelihood of confusion. In addition, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants imitated its trade dress and packaging, including the artistic elements, colour combination, style of lettering, font, logos, symbols, and graphical representations, all of which are protected under its registered copyrights. According to the Plaintiff, such acts constitute infringement of both its trademark and copyright rights.
The comparison chart of similarities of both party’s marks are tabulated below:
| Plaintiff’s mark | Defendant’s mark |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Key Legal Issue
The principal issue for consideration before the Court was whether the use of a translated version of a registered trademark can amount to trademark infringement under Indian trademark law.
This required the Court to determine whether the assessment of similarity between marks should be limited to visual and phonetic resemblance, or whether it should also encompass conceptual and semantic equivalence.
Court’s Analysis
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed that the Defendants, by adopting the trademark TAJDHANI, which bore a deceptive resemblance to the plaintiff’s marks RAJDHANI and CAPITAL (the latter being the English translation of “RAJDHANI”), were liable for both trademark infringement and passing off. In reaching this conclusion, the Hon’ble Court placed reliance on Bhatia Plastics v. Peacock Industry, 1994 SCC Online Del 387, wherein it was held that the defendant’s use of the term “Peacock” amounted to infringement of the plaintiff’s registered trademark “MAYUR,” as the two expressions were synonymous and conveyed the same meaning.
Accordingly, the Court held that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case for the grant of an ex parte ad interim injunction. It further found that the balance of convenience favored the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff was likely to suffer irreparable harm and injury in the absence of such interim relief.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court emphasized that trademark protection extends beyond literal imitation. According to the Court, infringement can occur when a mark conveys the same idea or meaning, even if the words are different.
The Court observed that:
- The Hindi word “Rajdhani” directly translates to “Capital” in English.
- Both marks convey the same concept and meaning to consumers.
- The use of the translated mark in the same line of trade is likely to mislead consumers into believing there is an association between the businesses.
The Court also noted that trademark law aims to prevent unfair advantage and consumer confusion, and that translating a mark into another language may serve as a means to imitate and capitalize on the goodwill of an established brand.
Judicial Significance
This decision has several implications for trademark law and business practices:
- Expanded Scope of Protection
Trademark owners are safeguarded not only against identical marks but also against translated equivalents. - Recognition of Multilingual Consumer Perception
The decision recognizes India’s linguistic diversity and affirms that consumers often interpret brand names across languages. - Deterrence against Strategic Imitation
Businesses cannot circumvent infringement liability merely by translating an existing trademark into another language.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the decision in Victoria Foods Private Limited v. Ashad Trading Co. & Ors. significantly broadens the scope of trademark protection in India by recognizing that infringement can arise through translated equivalents of registered marks. The Court’s emphasis on conceptual and semantic similarity, alongside visual and phonetic likeness, reflects a nuanced understanding of consumer perception in a multilingual society. By holding that “Capital” infringes “Rajdhani”, the judgment reinforces that meaning and idea conveyed by a mark are equally important. This decision serves as a strong deterrent against strategic imitation and safeguards brand identity more comprehensively. Ultimately, it strengthens the legal framework to prevent consumer confusion and unfair trade practices.