Case Title: KRBL Limited Vs Becher Raghavji Patel & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 724/2016
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:___ (as reflected on the order uploaded)
Date of Order: 31 October 2025
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Hon’ble Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Facts
The plaintiff, M/s KRBL Limited, is one of India’s leading companies engaged in the business of processing, marketing, and exporting rice, including basmati rice. In 1993, the plaintiff adopted the trademark “INDIA GATE” along with the artistic device of the India Gate monument for its rice products. Over time, the plaintiff’s brand attained enormous reputation and goodwill across India and internationally, with trademark registrations not only in India but also in several foreign jurisdictions including Canada and Australia. The plaintiff also secured a copyright registration for the artistic label depicting the India Gate. Subsequently, in 2019, while the present suit was pending, the plaintiff became the registered proprietor of the trademark “INDIA GATE” in Class 30 under No. 599833.
The plaintiff discovered in 2006 that the defendants had applied for registration of the trademark “MUMBAI GATE” with the device of a gate for rice. The plaintiff objected immediately on the ground that the mark was a deceptive imitation of the famous INDIA GATE mark, likely to mislead the public into assuming an association between the defendants’ products and the plaintiff. The defendants did not commence commercial use of the mark, but their registration attempts and efforts to build distribution networks across India triggered the suit.
Procedural Details
The suit was instituted in 2006 seeking a permanent injunction for infringement of copyright and trademark and for passing off. Summons were issued and an ex parte ad-interim injunction was granted on 02.11.2006 restraining the defendants from using the mark “MUMBAI GATE”. The defendants appeared initially and filed a written statement, but they did not produce any invoices or documentary proof of actual commercial use of the impugned mark. They failed to admit or deny the documents of the plaintiff.
Issues were framed on 16.12.2008, and evidence was led by the plaintiff with original invoice records showing continuous use of the INDIA GATE mark since 1993, billing worth crores of rupees, trademark and copyright registrations, and proof of well-known trademark status. The defendants neither filed evidence nor cross-examined the plaintiff’s witnesses. On 24.10.2024, after repeated absence, the defendants were proceeded ex parte.
Core Dispute
The central legal question was whether the defendants’ trademark “MUMBAI GATE with the device of a gate” constituted infringement and passing off against the plaintiff’s established and well-known registered trademark “INDIA GATE”. The plaintiff claimed that the rival marks were phonetically, visually, structurally and conceptually similar, creating a high probability of deception. The defendants, having stopped defending the suit, put forward no evidence to support their mark or justify its adoption.
Detailed Reasoning and Analysis
The Court first acknowledged that the plaintiff had incontestable prior rights over the trademark INDIA GATE. Continuous commercial use since 1993, massive sales volumes, and wide market penetration established strong goodwill. The trademark had also been officially recognised as a well-known trademark in the Trademarks Journal No. 1915 on 19.08.2019, evidence of its special status under trademark law.
The registration certificate dated 12.08.2019 for INDIA GATE in Class 30 confirmed statutory rights under the Trademarks Act, 1999. Further, the copyright registration reinforced ownership of the artistic work in the label.
The Court noted that the defendants had not placed on record any evidence of actual commercial use of “MUMBAI GATE”. However, proof of actual use is not necessary for granting an injunction if imitation and likelihood of confusion exist. The very adoption of a deceptively similar mark is actionable if it is intended to ride upon the reputation of another.
The Court relied upon decisions previously recognising the proprietary rights of KRBL Limited in the INDIA GATE trademark, including KRBL Limited v. Praveen Kumar Buyyani and KRBL Limited v. John Doe, as well as the well-established principles of trademark infringement laid down in Century Traders v. Roshan Lal Duggar and later in Wow Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Wow Burger & Anr.
The most critical legal test applied was the triple identity test, which was affirmed by the Division Bench in KRBL Limited v. Praveen Kumar Buyyani, holding that similarity in the rival marks INDIA GATE and BHARAT GATE for identical goods (rice) and identical customer base satisfied the criteria for infringement. The same reasoning applied to the present case because the suffix “GATE”, the device of a monumental gate, and the use of the mark for rice all pointed to an obvious attempt to confuse consumers.
The Court concluded that the defendants’ adoption was not honest. It would have misled ordinary purchasers and would have caused substantial injury to the plaintiff’s goodwill and business. The injunction granted in 2006 already prevented further damage and remained uninterrupted for nearly two decades. The Court found that there was no legal or equitable justification not to convert the interim injunction into a permanent decree.
Decision
The High Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. A permanent injunction was granted restraining the defendants from using the trademark “MUMBAI GATE” or any other mark deceptively similar to “INDIA GATE”. The interim injunction dated 02.11.2006 was merged into the final decree.
The plaintiff did not press for reliefs concerning damages or delivery-up of infringing goods because there was no evidence that the defendants ever commercially sold products under the impugned mark. However, considering that the plaintiff contested the matter for nearly nineteen years, incurring substantial litigation expenses across 95 hearing dates, the Court awarded lump-sum legal costs of ₹10,00,000 in favour of the plaintiff.
With these directions, the suit was decreed and disposed of.
Suggested Titles for Publication
“Protection of Well-Known Trademarks in India: A Detailed Analysis of the INDIA GATE v. MUMBAI GATE Judgment”
“Triple Identity Test Reinforced: Kerala High Court’s Approach to Trademark Imitation in the INDIA GATE Case”
“From Interim to Permanent: How Long-Term Injunctions Strengthen Trademark Rights — Lessons from KRBL Limited”
“Deceptive Similarity and Monuments as Brand Devices: A Study of the INDIA GATE Trademark Litigation”
“Judicial Protection of Market Goodwill: Examining the Delhi High Court’s Trademark Enforcement in KRBL v. Becher Raghavji Patel”
Disclaimer
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
