India Gate Vs. Bharat Gate: The Delhi High Court’s Verdict On Trademark Infringement

Introduction:

Earlier, on 15 January, 2025 in the matter of KRBL Limited v. Praveen Kumar Buyyani & Ors, the Delhi High Court ruled in favour of KRBL Limited, the owner of the famous “India Gate” basmati rice brand when it heard a trademark infringement suit against “Bharat Gate”. A Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul set aside an earlier order of a Commercial Court which had vacated an interim injunction on Bharat Gate. The judgement protects and upholds intellectual property rights as well as on competent and well-established brands against unfair competition by continuing to restrain the use of ‘Bharat Gate’ trademark for rice and allied products.

Background:

The dispute is based on the fact that the trademarks “India Gate” and “Bharat Gate” are too similar. The names are similar both conceptually and phonetically. “Bharat” means “India,” and “Gate” is the same word in both the trademarks. Because both marks were used to market basmati rice, the potential for consumer confusion was significant. The High Court had applied the so-called triple identity test—an analysis of the similarity of goods, marks and likelihood of confusion—and held that Bharat Gate’s branding established trademark infringement of KRBL Limited.

The case hinged on the principle of “deceptive similarity.” The bench observed that “India Gate” is synonymous with the iconic India Gate monument of Delhi and is correlated with and that was further reinforced Id with the packaging design. The packaging of Bharat Gate also had featured.

Court’s Findings:

The exercise was found to be incorrect on multiple counts by the High Court, which spliced through the Commercial Court’s earlier decision. The Commercial Court first underestimated the phonetic and conceptual similarities between “India Gate” and “Bharat Gate.” The High Court also unequivocally said that the two terms refer to the same concept. Adding “Gate” to both marks only accentuated the similarities. The Commercial Court had placed great weight on differences in packaging colour and design, but the High Court explained that the relevant comparison of the marks (the conflicting trademarks) for the purposes of determining a trademark dispute must be the overall impression created by the marks, not minor visual differences. The essence of the trademarks — their names and related imagery — were practically the same.

The second issue is the rationale behind Bharat Gate’s branding strategy. The High Court observed that Bharat Gate has not provided any satisfactory response as to why a name so similar to “India Gate” was chosen. Considering the established presence of India Gate in the market, the choice of “Bharat Gate” seemed to be a deliberate attempt to usurp the good will of an established brand. The use of the India Gate monument on Bharat Gate’s packaging also suggested an effort to deceive consumers into believing that there was a legitimate connection between the two companies.

Addressing the Argument of Generic Terms

Bharat Gate contended that “India Gate” should be classified as non-protectable mark for rice as the word combination of “India” and “Gate” is not distinctive. The High Court disregarded this contention and pointed out that though India and Gate are apparently marks, when used in conjunction with basmati rice, they had become distinctive over the years. This distinctiveness was supported by the stronger market reputation and presence of the India Gate brand, which gave him robust protection under the Trade Marks Act. By virtue of registering that trademark, KRBL Limited obtained the right that no one else had and any contravention through a similar mark was a clear infringement of the law.

The ruling of the High Court on this issue had its basis on established precedents, including in particular the ruling of the Supreme Court in Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. B. Vijaya Sai. In that matter, the Supreme Court found trademark infringement exists if a mark is similar enough to other marks to create confusion irrespective of the cost of the goods or the targeted consumers. Following this logic, the High Court noted that the likelihood of confusion is a critical aspect of trademark law. Bharat Gate’s contention that a difference in the price of both products and the target audience of the goods lowered the possibility of confusion was dismissed as both products were designed for the same market irrespective of their price.

Moreover, the High Court has applied the so-called Munday and Slazenger principles where it is assumed there is an intent to deceive by a party who is plainly copying a mark, especially where the actions of the defendant are considered to be calculated in order to benefit from the reputation of a reputable brand. In this instance, the evidence seemed overwhelmingly adjusted to indicate that Bharat Gate intended to gain advantage from the reputation of India Gate.

Broader Implications:

The ruling is significant both for businesses and consumers. In the case of businesses, it is important to note that care must be taken during branding and that there is infringement of already existing trademarks. There is need to safeguard trademarks so that competition is fair and to avert injuries that may result from false advertising.

In relation to consumers, the ruling strengthens the need for openness and fair play in the market. A trademark should be a defendable symbol that identifies the source and guarantees certain characteristics of the goods. The law also prevents an unknowing buyer from being deceived because the distinctiveness of a trademark is essential. This is very important especially in the basmati rice market which relies heavily on the image of the brand in consumers’ minds.

Evaluating Trademarks Holistically:

One of the main points from the judgement is the importance of how trademarks should be evaluated in totality and not in parts. The court reasoned that consumers observe trademarks as a single unit and any variation in the name or picture may cause confusion. Such top level thinking resonates with the core philosophy of trademark law, which is to guard against misleading consumers and enable competition by preserving well established trademarks.

Shallow defenses, such as averting visual confusion by claiming that differences in packaging lessened the likelihood of confusion, were also set aside. The court was of the view that even if the designs were entirely different, the phonetic and conceptual likenesses of “India Gate” with “Bharat Gate” would still be sufficient to show infringement. This demonstrates the importance of context in trademark division cases and highlights how the overall impression conveyed by the marks is paramount.

Conclusion:

The Delhi High Court ruling upholding the claims of KRBL Limited, is bound to have far reaching implications in trademark protection and competition. The importance of this decision extends beyond the outcome of this particular litigation. It solidifies the values of honesty and civility in the conduct of business. The economy suffers when monopolistic practices are exercised. The court’s decision is ensuring that trademarks will continue functioning as the primary source of information to the consumers, as well as protection to the businesses.

King Stubb & Kasiva,
Advocates & Attorneys

Click Here to Get in Touch

New Delhi | Mumbai | Bangalore | Chennai | Hyderabad | Mangalore | Pune | Kochi
Tel: +91 11 41032969 | Email: info@ksandk.com