Delhi High Court Refuses Interim Injunction To KRBL In Trademark Infringement Suit, Says Vikram Mills Can Use ‘India Gate’ Mark For Dalia
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant an interim injunction in favour of KRBL Limited, a market leader in the business of processing, marketing and exporting rice, in a case accusing Vikram Roller Flour Mills of infringing its right over the ‘India Gate’ mark by its use in respect of ‘dalia’.
Justice Amit Bansal said Vikram Mills has placed sufficient material on record showing use of the ‘INDIA GATE’ device mark by it from 1990, which is prior to the registration granted to KRBL.
“To be noted, the registration granted in favour of the plaintiff was only in respect of ‘rice’. The earliest invoice filed on behalf of the plaintiff showing user of the trademark ‘INDIA GATE’ is of 18th February, 1995,” it said.
Justice Bansal said when two persons are registered proprietors of identical or similar trademarks both have the exclusive right to use the said trademarks, in terms of Section 28(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Vikram Mills was granted registration in respect of the device mark ‘INDIA GATE’ with effect from November, 1993, the court noted.
The court also said that Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, declaring the KRBL’s trademark ‘INDIA GATE’ as a ‘well-known trademark’ in July 2019 was based on an order passed by Additional District Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in ex parte proceedings in 2016.
“It is pertinent to note that neither any prayer was sought nor any issue was framed with regard to the trademark of the plaintiff being a ‘well-known trademark’. The plaintiff cannot take advantage of the aforesaid determination of its trademark being a ‘well-known trademark’ so as to prevent the defendant from using the said trademark in respect of which the defendant has prior user and registration,” it added.
The court further said that earliest copyright registration in favour of KRBL is in 1999, which is much after the use of the artistic device for ‘India Gate’ by Vikram Mills. “The pictorial depiction of INDIA GATE is substantially different in the label of the plaintiff and the label of the defendant. Therefore, no case for copyright infringement is made out,” it added.
It also said that there is a material difference between the packaging of the plaintiff and the defendant. “Even though the words ‘INDIA GATE’ and the pictorial representation of INDIA GATE occur in both the packaging of the plaintiff and the defendant, the getup of the packaging is substantially different, so there can be no possibility of confusion or deception to the public,” said the court.
Source: Livelaw