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.

History

KRBL told the court that it acquired rights in the trademark 'India Gate' in 2019 from one Ram Pratap, effective from June 1993. Vikram Mills is engaged in the business of processing, marketing and selling of ‘atta’, ‘suji’, ‘maida’, ‘rawa’ and ‘bran’ under the trademark ‘India Gate’, with the device of 'India Gate'.

In 2011, KRBL had filed a suit against Vikram Mills wherein an injunction was granted in its favour - Vikram Mills was restrained from using the trademark in respect of any product other than ‘atta’, ‘suji’, ‘maida’, ‘rawa’ and ‘bran’. In appeal, the high court in April 2014 passed a consent order according to which KRBL was permitted to use the trademark in respect of rice and Vikram Mills was allowed to use in respect of ‘atta’, ‘suji’, ‘maida’, ‘rawa’ and ‘bran’

In the same year, Vikram Fills had also filed a suit against KRBL accusing it of infringement - the matter is pending before the high court. A cancellation petition has also been filed by KRBL against the registration of trademark in favour of Vikram Mills where the latter has given an undertaking that it would not rely upon the said registration against the former.

KRBL last year moved a suit before high court seeking permanent injunction since Vikram Mills has filed an application in Class 30 for registration of trademark 'India Gate' (device) and 'India Gate Brand' in relation to 'dalia'. 

Dispute Over Consent Order

KRBL argued before the court that use of 'India Gate' in relation to 'dalia' is in violation of the consent order passed by the high court in 2014 as Vikram Mills was permitted to use the trademark only in respect of only ‘atta’, ‘suji’, ‘maida’, ‘rawa’ and ‘bran’, but not ‘dalia'. The court was also told that injunction granted against Vikram Mills by trial court in relation to goods other than ‘atta’, ‘suji’, ‘maida’, ‘rawa’ and ‘bran’ was not set aside and therefore, continues to operate.

It also contended that the trademark registration application of Vikram Mills in respect of ‘dalia’ is still pending and therefore, the usage constitutes infringement of its registered and ‘well-known trademark' 'India Gate'.

Vikram Mills argued that the consent order of 2014 was only in relation to rice and ‘atta’, ‘suji’, ‘maida’, ‘rawa’ and ‘bran’, and not in relation to any other goods. It also contended that it is a prior use of the trademark in respect of ‘atta’, ‘suji’, ‘maida’, ‘rawa’ and ‘bran’, which are all wheat products, since 1975, and has an inherent right to expand its range of products.

It also told the court it has been using the trademark for 'dalia' since 2015. "The plaintiff (KRBL) itself has filed various registration applications for the trademark ‘INDIA GATE’ in respect of ‘rice flour’, ‘idli rava’, ‘rice atta’ and in respect of goods other than ‘rice’, such as ‘quinoa’, ‘flax seeds’ and ‘millets’," the counsel representing Vikram Mills submitted.

The court said the entitlement of parties to use the trademark ‘India Gate' for any other products other than the aforenoted products, was not covered by the consent order.

"A reading of the aforesaid order makes it clear that there was no bar either on the plaintiff or on the defendant to use the trademark ‘INDIA GATE’ in respect of products other than those that were the subject matter of the said suit i.e., ‘atta’, ‘suji’, ‘maida’, ‘rawa’, ‘bran’ and ‘rice’," it added.

The bench did not agree with the contention that since the high court did not set aside the trial court order,  it continues to operate.

"Once a comprehensive consent order has been passed by the Appellate Court clearly defining the inter se arrangement between the plaintiff and the defendant during the pendency of the suit, no reliance can be placed on the order of the Trial Court, which is deemed to have merged with the order passed by the Appellate Court. Therefore, there is no merit in the submission that the consent order did not specifically set aside the order of the Trial Court and only partially modified the said order," it added.

Taking note of the fact that KRBL filed various trademark registration applications in Class 30 in respect of ‘rice flour’, ‘idli rava’, ‘rice atta’ and goods other than ‘rice’, such as ‘quinoa’, ‘flaxseeds’ ‘millets’, etc, the court said if the plaintiff has a right to expand the usage of its trademark ‘INDIA GATE’ in respect of other ‘rice’ products and products beyond ‘rice’, Vikram Mills cannot be denied the same right to expand its business into other allied/cognate products.

"The present case relates to ‘dalia’, which would fall in the category of wheat products. Pertinently, the defendant is not using the trademark ‘INDIA GATE’ in respect of ‘rice’ or ‘rice’ products. I do not read any restriction in the consent order either on the plaintiff or the defendant from expanding their business into other products. Therefore, in my considered view, the defendant was entitled to expand its product range into similar or cognate or allied goods and use the trademark ‘INDIA GATE’ in respect of such goods, including ‘dalia’," said the bench.

Title: KRBL LIMITED vs VIKRAM ROLLER FLOUR MILLS LIMITED

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 69

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment