'Bharat Gate' Mark Infringes 'India Gate' Mark, Phonetically Similar: Delhi High Court Rules In Favour Of KRBL Rice Company

The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of KRBL Limited, a company known for its India Gate brand of basmati rice, in a trademark infringement case against “Bharat Gate” brand selling basmati rice.

A division bench comprising of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul set aside a commercial court's order vacating the ad interim injunction granted in favour of India Gate, restraining Bharat Gare from using its trademark in respect of rice or any other associated or allied product.

Allowing KRBL Limited's appeal, the Court observed that the mark BHARAT GATE infringes the mark INDIA GATE, noting that both marks are used for the same goods. “They are phonetically similar. “Bharat” and “India” convey the same idea, Preambularly and otherwise. Both are used for rice. The triple identity test, too, therefore, stands satisfied,” the Court said.

It added that there is “deceptive similarity” between the INDIA GATE and BHARAT GATE marks which is likely to result in confusion or a presumption of association between them.

Observing that latter common “Gate” part of the marks itself renders them phonetically similar, the Court said:

“When one compares, visually, the appellant's INDIA GATE and respondent's BHARAT GATE marks, as used on their respective packs, it is apparent that the respondent has, besides using a word mark which is phonetically similar and representing the same idea as the appellant's mark, also copied the essential features of the appellant's mark. Most tellingly, the figure of the India Gate figures prominently on both the packs.”

Furthermore, the Bench said that the commercial court's reliance on the visual dissimilarities between INDIA GATE and BHARAT GATE marks was completely misplaced.

It also observed that the use of “Bharat”, a synonym for “India” by Bharat Gate was merely a misguided attempt to avoid an allegation of slavish adoption.

“India Gate” has a well-known and well-recognized connotation, being referable to one of our proudest national monuments, in the heart of the Delhi. This is underscored by the pictorial representation of the India Gate on the appellant's package, accompanying the INDIA GATE mark. “Bharat Gate”, on the other hand, has no meaning whatsoever, except as a corrupted synonym of “India Gate”.

The usage, by the respondent, of the figure of the India Gate prominently covering nearly the whole of the packing clearly indicates a deliberate attempt, by the respondent, to deceive consumers into confusing the respondent's product with the appellant's,” it said.

The Bench concluded that there was no conceivable explanation as to why “BHARAT GATE” mark was used for rice where KRBL Limited's well-known mark “INDIA GATE” was already in existence.

The reason can only be to capitalise on the appellant's goodwill and ensure sales of the respondent's product, it said.

“The mark INDIA GATE cannot, clearly, be regarded as publici juris when used for rice. INDIA GATE, most certainly, is not a mark or name of common usage, for rice. As a moniker for rice, therefore, INDIA GATE is decidedly inventive, and would, on its registration, insure the registrant – the appellant before us – from the use, by anyone else, of a deceptively similar mark,” the Bench ruled.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Anirudh Bakhru, Mr. SK Bansal, Mr. Deepak Shrivastava and Mr. Vijay C Rathi, Advs

Title: KRBL LIMITED v. PRAVEEN KUMAR BUYYANI & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 63

Click here to read order