Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur held that for infringement the mark may be used in any other relation whatsoever to such goods.   

• The Delhi High Court held this in the case of KRB Enterprises & Ors v. M/s KRBL Limited (2025). 

What was the Background of KRB Enterprises & Ors v. M/s KRBL Limited (2025) Case?   

• Appellant No. 1, M/s KRB Enterprises, is a partnership firm comprising Mr. Basant Kumar Jindal, Mr. Krishan Jindal, and Mr. Sanjay Jindal. 
• Appellant No. 2, M/s KRB Rice Mills Private Limited, is a company registered under the Companies Act, 2013. 
• Appellant No. 3, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jindal, is the proprietor of M/s Jindal Traders. 
• The appellants are engaged in the business of manufacturing, trading, and marketing food products like rice, coffee, and sugar, which fall under Class 30 for trademark registration under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (TM Act). 
• The case concerns an alleged trademark infringement by the appellants of the respondent's mark: “KRBL LIMITED ALONG WITH DEVICE PADDY FORMING THE SHAPE OF DIAMOND”. 
• The respondent, KRBL Ltd., is engaged in the business of manufacturing, processing, marketing, selling, and exporting food products like rice, quinoa, chia seeds, and flax seeds. 
• KRBL Ltd. was originally incorporated in 1993 as Khushi Ram Bihari Lal Ltd. and renamed KRBL Ltd. in 2000, since when it has used the KRBL trademark. 
• The respondent claims registration of its trademark under Nos. 1352767 and 3664458, and the artistic elements of the mark are registered under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. 
• The respondent asserts that the mark KRBL is an essential part of its corporate identity and group companies and is widely used on its website and domain name. 
• The respondent provided sales figures from 2000 to 2021, indicating significant revenue and continuous use of the mark. 
• The respondent discovered the appellants' use of the mark KRB in 2016 via trademark applications (Nos. 2492500 and 2492501) and opposed them. 
• In May 2022, the respondent found rice being sold online using the impugned KRB mark, which led to further investigation. 
• The respondent found that Appellant No. 3 applied for the mark under No. 4438483 in 2020, claiming usage from 2017; this application was objected to by the Registrar. 
• The respondent also discovered that Appellant No. 2 was incorporated in July 2021, and its directors were partners in Appellant No. 1. 
• The respondent filed a suit alleging trademark infringement, passing off, copyright violation, and unfair competition, claiming irreparable harm to its goodwill and reputation. 
• The appellants, in their defense, claimed honest and bona fide adoption of the KRB mark since 2009, asserting it represents family initials. 
• They submitted their annual sales figures from 2012 to 2022, indicating continuous use and significant turnover under the KRB mark. 
• The appellants stated that they have been purchasing rice from the respondent since 2014, indicating the respondent was aware of their existence and thus has acquiesced to their usage. 
• The appellants also highlighted that the respondent’s application (No. 3664458) includes a condition that the mark must be used as a whole, implying no exclusive right over “KRBL” alone. 
• The appellants claimed that the respondent abandoned a prior application (No. 941861), and therefore cannot assert exclusive rights over the mark. 
• A fourth party, M/s New KRB Foods, was also named in the suit but had not been served summons. The appellants claimed no association with this entity. 
• The District Judge granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the appellants and others from using the KRB mark or any deceptively similar mark, based on alleged trademark and copyright infringement. 
• The appellants have filed the present appeal against the ad-interim injunction order. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• Limited Scope of Appellate Interference: The appellate court reiterated that it would interfere with a discretionary order under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) only if the trial court exercised its discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or perversely, or ignored settled legal principles. 
• Test for Perversity: The Supreme Court in Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi (2024) clarified that a finding is perverse only if it stems from a complete misreading of evidence or is based solely on conjecture or surmise, not merely because a different conclusion could have been drawn. 
• Trademark Use and Recognition: The Respondent, KRBL Ltd., has been using the mark "KRBL" since 2000 and owns domain name rights as well as trademark registrations, including in Class 35. The court held that even use of a corporate name can qualify as the use of a trademark. 
• Manner of Use of Trademark: It is not necessary for the mark to appear physically on the goods; use in relation to goods or in advertisements also constitutes valid trademark used under Section 2(2)(c) of the TM Act. 
• Trademark Infringement Analysis: Despite the Respondent's main trademarks being "India Gate" and "Unity", the court found the use of "KRBL" as a mark to be valid and protectable. The similarity between the Appellants’ mark "KRB" and the Respondent’s mark "KRBL" was held to be deceptively similar. 
• Effect of Withdrawal and Reapplication of Trademark: The Respondent’s brief withdrawal of its Class-30 trademark registration due to erroneous legal advice, followed by immediate reapplication, did not amount to abandonment of rights in the mark. 
• Rejection of Acquiescence Argument: The Appellant’s plea of acquiescence was rejected because the Respondent acted promptly upon becoming aware of actual use of the impugned mark in 2022, despite opposing the Appellant’s registration in 2016. 
• No Evidence of Encouragement or Consent: The court held that the Respondent had not encouraged or induced the Appellants to use the impugned mark, and prior invoices did not demonstrate trademark use or endorsement. 
• Prima Facie Case of Infringement and Passing Off: The court found that the marks are deceptively similar, the goods are identical, the Appellants’ use is not bona fide, and the Respondent has not abandoned or acquiesced the use, establishing a prima facie case of infringement and passing off. 
• Injunction Justified: The court held that the Respondent is likely to suffer grave and irreparable injury if interim relief is not granted, and that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the Respondent, justifying the grant of an ad interim injunction.

What is the ‘Use of Mark’ under the Trademark Act? 

• Section 2 (1) (m) of TM Act defines ‘mark’ as: 
  • Mark includes a  
    • device, brand, heading, label, ticket, name, signature, word, letter, numeral, shape of goods, packaging or combination of colours  
    • or any combination thereof. 
• Section 2 (1) (zb) defines trade mark as: 
  • A trademark means a mark that can be represented graphically and is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of others. 
  • It may include the shape of goods, their packaging, and combinations of colours. 
  • A mark is used in relation to goods or services to indicate a connection in the course of trade between the goods or services and the person who has the right as the proprietor to use the mark. 
  • In the context of other provisions of the Trade Marks Act, a trade mark includes a mark used or proposed to be used to indicate a trade connection with a person who has the right to use the mark, either as a proprietor or as a permitted user, whether or not the identity of that person is revealed. 
  • The definition also includes a certification trademark and a collective mark. 
  • In relation to Chapter XII (excluding section 107), a trademark refers to a registered trademark or a mark in the process of being registered. 
• Section 2 (2) (c) of the Trademark Act defines ‘use of mark’ as: 
  • The use of a mark in relation to goods refers to the use of the mark upon the goods or in any physical or any other relation whatsoever to those goods. 
  • The use of a mark in relation to services refers to the use of the mark as part of any statement about the availability, provision, or performance of those services.