KRB Enterprises Vs. KRBL Ltd.:26th May, 2025:
FAO (COMM) 69/2024:2025:DHC:4364-DB:High Court of Delhi:Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Shalinder Kaur
Law Settled in the Case:
1. Use of a Corporate Name as a Trademark:
A corporate name can qualify as a trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 if it is used in such a way as to indicate a connection in the course of trade between the goods or services and the company. The term “mark” under Section 2(1)(m) and “trademark” under Section 2(1)(zb) includes a name that serves as a source identifier.
2. Trademark Use Not Limited to Physical Goods:
The “use” of a mark in relation to goods under Section 2(2)(c) of the Act includes not just physical affixation but any relation whatsoever to the goods — including advertising, marketing, distribution, etc.
3. Trademark Infringement Not Confined to Registered Class:
Protection of a registered mark under one class (e.g., Class 35 for services like advertising, distribution, and retail of rice) can extend to other allied and cognate classes (like Class 30 for rice) if the infringing goods or services are similar and likely to cause confusion. Thus, infringement under Section 29 can be attracted even when marks are registered in different classes.
4. Principle Against Dissecting a Mark:
While assessing deceptive similarity, the mark should be viewed as a whole; however, the dominant part of the mark can be considered. The court held that “KRB” was deceptively similar to “KRBL” considering the dominance of the letters and the nature of goods and services.
5. Scope of Appellate Interference in Interim Orders:
Following the principle laid down in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd. and reiterated in Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi, appellate courts will not interfere with discretionary interim orders unless they are shown to be perverse, arbitrary, or contrary to settled principles.
6. No Acquiescence Without Knowledge and Delay with Inaction:
Mere delay or past transactions without demonstrable knowledge of trademark misuse by the right holders does not amount to acquiescence. A positive act of knowingly allowing infringement is required.
7. Withdrawal of a Trademark Application Does Not Equal Abandonment:
If the proprietor withdraws a trademark registration based on mistaken legal advice and promptly reapplies for it, this does not amount to abandonment or loss of rights in the trademark.
