Amir Chand Jagdish Kumar Exports Ltd. Vs. Knam Foods Pvt. Ltd.

Brief Introductory Head Note and Summary of the Case

The case of Amir Chand Jagdish Kumar Exports Ltd. v. Knam Foods Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. concerns a conflict over use of trademarks and trade dress in the highly competitive Indian basmati rice export market. The plaintiff, a long-established exporter, approached the Delhi High Court alleging that the defendants copied its well-known mark AL-BUSTAN and replicated the packaging in a manner that would deceive consumers. The central theme of the dispute touches upon passing off, trademark usage, goodwill protection, and trade dress imitation. The Court was called upon to determine whether an ad-interim injunction must be granted to protect the plaintiff’s commercial identity and prevent consumer confusion.

Factual Background

The plaintiff is engaged in the business of processing, marketing and exporting rice, including premium basmati rice, under a wide portfolio of trademarks such as AEROPLANE, LA TASTE, and particularly AL-BUSTAN. The company claims to have adopted AL-BUSTAN in June 2007 and has been using distinctive blue and yellow trade dress featuring the mark in both English and Arabic. A trademark application for AL-BUSTAN was filed on 01.12.2011 and is pending before the Trademark Registry.

The plaintiff’s products are sold internationally with high turnover and consistent promotional investment. The sales figures for 2023–2024 stood at ₹1344.67 crores with advertisement spending of ₹520.30 lakhs.

Defendant No. 1, a business entity also involved in export of rice, introduced a product under the name AL-BUSTAN in similar blue and yellow packaging. Defendant No. 5 was previously the plaintiff’s distributor in foreign countries, but the business relationship later ended. The plaintiff claimed that Defendant No. 5, despite earlier knowledge of the plaintiff’s mark and packaging, is now supporting the Defendants in selling deceptively similar products.

The plaintiff served a cease-and-desist notice in 2024. Although Defendant No. 1 denied infringement, they simultaneously filed a trademark application for AL-BUSTAN on 20.12.2024 claiming usage from 10.01.2023, which the plaintiff argued demonstrated bad faith and copying.

Procedural Detail

The suit was instituted before the Delhi High Court seeking permanent injunction for infringement of trademark, copyright, passing off and related reliefs. A series of interlocutory applications were disposed of relating to filing of additional documents, exemption from serving certified copies, exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act 2015, and service exemptions.

The main prayer at this stage was for ex-parte ad-interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC against the defendants. Defendant(s) were served advance notice through e-mail but failed to appear.

Core Dispute

The dispute hinges on whether the defendants’ use of the identical mark AL-BUSTAN and practically indistinguishable packaging amounts to an attempt to piggyback on the plaintiff’s goodwill, resulting in passing off and deceptive similarity despite the plaintiff’s trademark still being under process of registration.

The Court examined the plaintiff’s prior use and goodwill, the defendants’ replication of trade dress, and the potential for consumer confusion.

Detailed Reasoning and Discussion by the Court

The Court first took note of the plaintiff’s prior adoption and use of the AL-BUSTAN mark since 2007 and the trademark application of 2011, which clearly indicates longstanding commercial usage even though formal registration was pending. The defendants’ trademark application filed only in December 2024 with a user claim beginning January 2023 conclusively showed that the plaintiff is the prior user.

Further, inspection of packaging samples confirmed substantial imitation. The defendants copied not only the colour scheme (blue and yellow), font style, placement of Arabic script, artistic layout, and representation of rice grains, but even printed the same mobile phone number as that appearing on the plaintiff’s packaging. The Court described this imitation as "slavish copying".

The Court noted that when two products are sold through the same trade channels, intended for the same consumer group—including overseas rice-buying consumers—such a near-identical trade dress inevitably leads to consumer confusion. The defendants’ argument that AL-BUSTAN is a generic Arabic term meaning “the garden” held no ground because the defendants simultaneously claimed exclusive rights over it in their own trademark application.

The prior role of Defendant No. 5 as distributor of the plaintiff strengthened the inference that the defendants had direct knowledge of the plaintiff’s reputation and packaging and adopted similarities with deliberate intention. The Court found that goodwill and reputation were being unfairly exploited, satisfying legal requirements of passing off.

As the Court observed, the three primary elements for injunction in intellectual property matters were clearly established:

1. Prima facie case – Shown through prior use and direct copying.

2. Balance of convenience – In favour of plaintiff because continued imitation would damage its reputation and international market position.

3. Irreparable loss – As loss of goodwill cannot be compensated monetarily.

Given the gravity of copying and the risk of continued deception, an ex-parte injunction was warranted.

Decision

The Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants – including their proprietors, partners, agents, representatives, distributors, licensees, stockists, and others acting on their behalf – from manufacturing, selling, exporting, importing, advertising, or otherwise trading in rice products using the impugned mark AL-BUSTAN and the deceptively similar trade dress. They were also restrained from using any other mark or label that may be identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered or well-recognised labels and packaging. Compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC was ordered.

Concluding Note

The case highlights how trade dress imitation and brand exploitation in export markets can cause devastating commercial harm even without final trademark registration. The judgment reflects the consistent judicial approach that trademarks and trade dress are protected based on prior use and goodwill rather than mere registration status. The decision reinforces that courts will intervene urgently and decisively where imitation is deliberate, systematic, and aimed at misleading customers. It also underscores that in cases of intentional copying, the defence of descriptiveness or generic meaning of a term cannot save a party that has replicated nearly every visual and artistic element of another’s packaging. The order therefore stands as an important precedent in protecting Indian exporters from commercial counterfeiting and deceptive look-alike production in both domestic and international markets.

---

Case Details

Case Title: Amir Chand Jagdish Kumar Exports Ltd. Vs. Knam Foods Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Case Number: CS(COMM) 1251/2025

Order Date: 24 November 2025

Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:_____ (as per Court’s digital header)

Court: High Court of Delhi

Hon'ble Judge: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

---

Suggested Titles for Publication

1. Protection of Trade Dress and Prior Use: A Study of AL-BUSTAN Rice Packaging Dispute

2. Trademark Injunctions in Export-Oriented Markets: Judicial Approach in the AL-BUSTAN Case

3. Passing Off and Deceptive Similarity: How Courts Guard Commercial Identity Beyond Registration

4. Goodwill as a Legal Shield: Delhi High Court on Packaging Imitation in the Rice Industry

5. From Distributor to Competitor: Misuse of Business Knowledge and IP Rights in International Trade

=======

The Delhi High Court, in CS(COMM) 1251/2025 titled Amir Chand Jagdish Kumar Exports Ltd. v. Knam Foods Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., decided on 24 November 2025 by Hon’ble Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark AL-BUSTAN and the allegedly deceptively similar blue-and-yellow packaging for rice products.

The plaintiff, a leading rice exporter, argued that it has been using the trademark AL-BUSTAN since 2007, supported by extensive sales internationally and a unique trade dress that includes the mark in both English and Arabic on blue-and-yellow packaging. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants copied its mark and packaging in a “slavish and deliberate manner”, even replicating identical artistic layout, colour combination, product description, font style, and mobile number on the packaging. It was further alleged that Defendant No. 5, earlier a distributor of the plaintiff in foreign markets, was now supporting the defendants in exporting deceptively similar products, causing market confusion and erosion of goodwill.

The Court found a strong prima facie case of passing off, observing that the defendants’ packaging was almost indistinguishable from that of the plaintiff and that both parties were selling to the same consumer segment through the same commercial channels. The Court also took note that the plaintiff was the prior user since 2007, while the defendants sought rights only after receiving a cease-and-desist notice. The balance of convenience and risk of irreparable harm were held to favour the plaintiff.

Accordingly, the Court restrained the defendants and all persons acting on their behalf from manufacturing, selling, marketing, exporting, advertising, or dealing in products using the impugned mark AL-BUSTAN or any deceptively similar packaging until the next date of hearing, while directing compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC.

Disclaimer: This is for general information only and should not be construed as legal advice as it may contain human errors in perception and presentation: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor (Patent & Trademark Attorney), High Court of Delhi

====