KRB ENTERPRISES & ORS. …..Appellants
Versus
M/S. KRBL LIMITED …..Respondent
Date of order:- 26.05.2025
Factual Matrix and Procedural History
The dispute arose when KRBL Limited, a prominent rice manufacturer and exporter since 2000, filed a commercial suit against KRB Enterprises alleging infringement of its registered trademark “KRBL LIMITED ALONG WITH DEVICE PADDY FORMING THE SHAPE OF DIAMOND.” The suit contended that KRB’s use of the mark “KRB KREB” for identical goods (rice and allied products) constituted deceptive similarity, likely to cause confusion among consumers. The trial court granted an interim injunction restraining KRB from using the impugned mark, prompting the present appeal under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Core Legal Issues Framed by the Court
The appellate court delineated the following pivotal issues for determination:
- Whether KRBL‘s registration in Class 35 (services) could extend protection to goods under Class 30 given the interconnected nature of the business activities.
- Whether the withdrawal and subsequent re-filing of KRBL’s Class 30 application demonstrated an intent to abandon the trademark.
- Whether the appellants’ use of “KRB” since 2009 (as claimed) and KRBL’s delayed legal action warranted a finding of acquiescence.
- Whether the marks “KRBL” and “KRB” were deceptively similar under the parameters of Sections 29(1) and (2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Court’s Detailed Observations on Trademark Use and Infringement
The court meticulously analyzed Section 2(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, which defines “use of a mark” expansively to include not only physical affixation but also any relation to goods or services. Relying on Google LLC v. DRS Logistics (P) Limited (2023 SCC OnLine Del 4809), the bench emphasized that modern commerce necessitates a broad interpretation of “use,” encompassing digital platforms, advertising, and promotional activities. KRBL‘s evidence of consistent online presence (via www.krblrice.com), export invoices since 2000, and substantial advertising expenditure (exceeding ₹300 crores annually) substantiated its claim of continuous and bona fide use.
The court rejected KRB’s argument that KRBL’s primary sales under brands like “India Gate” negated its rights in the corporate mark “KRBL.” Citing Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah (2002) 3 SCC 65, it held that a trade name, if distinctive and widely recognized, qualifies for trademark protection irrespective of its use on product packaging. The judgment underscored that KRBL’s global revenue figures (averaging ₹400 crores annually) and market surveys demonstrating brand recognition conclusively established the mark’s secondary meaning.
Deceptive Similarity and the Anti-Dissection Principle
Applying the Parle Products v. J.P & Co. (AIR 1972 SC 1359) doctrine, the court acknowledged that while marks must be compared as a whole, the dominant features “KRB” in “KRBL” were phonetically and visually indistinguishable. The bench noted that the average consumer with imperfect recollection would likely confuse the marks, particularly given the identical trade channels (wholesale and retail rice sales). The court referenced Cadila Healthcare v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals (2001) 5 SCC 73 to highlight that deceptive similarity must be assessed contextually, including the nature of goods, consumer profiles, and trade practices.
Acquiescence and Abandonment: A Rigorous Scrutiny
The appellants heavily relied on Section 33 of the Trade Marks Act, asserting that KRBL’s eight-year delay in filing the suit after opposing their 2016 trademark application constituted acquiescence. The court, however, distinguished Power Control Appliances v. Sumeet Machines (1994) 2 SCC 448, noting that mere inaction, without positive encouragement, cannot amount to acquiescence. KRBL’s consistent opposition to KRB’s trademark applications and its prompt suit upon discovering market use in 2022 negated any inference of implied consent.
On abandonment, the court accepted KRBL‘s explanation that its withdrawal of the Class 30 application in 2017 was due to erroneous legal advice during GST implementation. The immediate re-filing within 24 hours demonstrated no intent to relinquish rights. Citing McCarthy on Trademarks, the judgment clarified that abandonment requires clear evidence of intent to discontinue use, which KRBL’s robust commercial evidence disproved.
Jurisdictional Challenge and Interim Injunction Standards
The court sidestepped the jurisdictional issue, observing that the appellants’ reliance on Indian Performing Rights Society v. Sanjay Dalia (2015) 10 SCC 161 was premature, as the trial court needed to examine factual assertions about the respondent’s place of business. On the injunction, the bench reaffirmed the Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (1990 Supp SCC 727) principle, holding that appellate interference is warranted only for perversity, not mere disagreement. The three-pronged test—prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury—was squarely met, given KRBL’s established goodwill and the appellants’ inability to demonstrate independent brand equity.
Broader Implications and Precedential Value
The judgment advances three critical jurisprudential principles:
- Digital Use as Trademark Use: By recognizing online presence and digital marketing as valid “use” under Section 2(2)(c), the court aligns Indian law with global trends in e-commerce branding.
- Inter-Class Protection for Allied Services: The ruling implicitly endorses cross-class protection where services (Class 35) are intrinsically linked to goods (Class 30), a stance previously hinted at in Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Coop. Milk Producers Federation (2018) 9 SCC 183 but now firmly established.
- Acquiescence Threshold: The decision raises the bar for proving acquiescence, requiring defendants to show not just delay but active encouragement—a significant shift from earlier leniency in cases like Midas Hygiene Industries v. Sudhir Bhatia (2004) 3 SCC 90.
Final Disposition and Forward-Looking Remarks
The dismissal of the appeal reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding brand identity in evolving market landscapes. The court’s nuanced approach—balancing statutory interpretation with commercial realities—sets a benchmark for future trademark disputes involving digital branding and inter-class protection. Litigants are now on notice that withdrawal and re-filing of applications, if bona fide, will not prejudice rights, and that acquiescence defenses demand concrete evidence of estoppel.
About the Author
Neeraj Gogia is a seasoned litigation expert with comprehensive experience handling diverse cases before the Delhi High Court. His practice spans commercial litigation, criminal matters, and divorce cases. He provides effective representation across all types of litigation in Delhi’s judicial landscape. Contact: 9891800100.
This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
© 2025 [Headnotes.in]. All rights reserved.
Follow us on LinkedIn for more insightful legal analyses.
#trademark #copyright #KRBL #appeal #delhihighcourt #Delhi #Rice #Digital #Acquiescence #Deceptive #infringement #use