--- title: "Delhi High Court Permits Amendment of Passing Off Suit to Incorporate Infringement Claim Following Subsequent Trademark Registration" date: 2026-09-21 author: "King Stubb & Kasiva" url: https://ksandk.com/newsletter/amendment-passing-off-suit-infringement-claim/ --- # Delhi High Court Permits Amendment of Passing Off Suit to Incorporate Infringement Claim Following Subsequent Trademark Registration Posted On - 21 September, 2026 • By - King Stubb & Kasiva ## **Summary** In M/s KRBL Limited v. M/s J.R. Rice India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., CS(COMM) 701/2016, the Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiff’s application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend its plaint to incorporate a claim for trademark infringement after the Plaintiff acquired rights in the registered ‘INDIA GATE’ trademark during the pendency of the suit, following which the mark was registered in the Plaintiff’s favour and declared a well-known trademark. The Court held that such amendment did not alter the basic nature or character of the suit, as the claims of passing off and infringement arose from substantially the same set of facts. The Court emphasised that subsequent events can be taken into account to ensure complete adjudication and avoid multiplicity of proceedings. While allowing the amendment despite the delay, the Court imposed costs of ₹50,000/- on the Plaintiff. ## **Facts of the Case** KRBL Limited instituted the suit seeking, inter alia, a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from using the impugned ‘ROYAL GATE’ trademark/label incorporating the ‘INDIA GATE’ device, or any deceptively similar mark, on the ground of passing off. At the time of institution of the suit, the Plaintiff’s ‘INDIA GATE’ mark was not registered in its favour and, consequently, the suit was predicated on the common law remedy of passing off. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Plaintiff acquired rights in the registered ‘INDIA GATE’ trademark from Mr. Ram Pratap under an Assignment Deed dated 06.08.2019. The mark was subsequently registered in the Plaintiff’s favour, and the ‘INDIA GATE’ mark was also included in the list of well-known trademarks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Plaintiff accordingly sought to amend the plaint to place these subsequent developments on record and incorporate a consequential claim for infringement. The Defendants opposed the amendment, contending that it would change the entire complexion of the suit, which had originally been confined to passing off. They also argued that the application was filed after a substantial delay and after the suit had proceeded to trial. ## **Issue before the Court** Whether a Plaintiff, whose trademark was unregistered at the time of institution of a passing off suit but subsequently becomes registered during the pendency of the proceedings, can amend the plaint to incorporate a claim for trademark infringement, particularly after commencement of trial and after a considerable delay. ## **Findings of the Court** The Court observed that the power to permit amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is wide and is intended to enable the Court to determine the real controversy between the parties. While amendments should not be permitted where they fundamentally alter the nature and character of the original proceedings or cause irremediable prejudice to the opposite party, a liberal approach is warranted where the amendment is necessary for complete adjudication and would avoid multiplicity of litigation. Relying upon Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K.K. Modi, Pravesh Narula Trading as M/s Capital Enterprises v. Raj Kumar Jain Trading as M/s Bholaram Puranmall & Anr., and other authorities, the Court reiterated that subsequent events occurring during the pendency of a suit may be taken into consideration, particularly where they give rise to a consequential or alternative relief arising from the same factual foundation. The Court noted that in a passing off action, the subsequent registration of the very trademark forming the subject matter of the suit does not introduce an entirely new dispute. The Court specifically relied upon the principle that the causes of action for passing-off and infringement are founded on substantially similar facts, and that permitting an amendment to introduce an infringement claim following registration of the mark does not change the basic structure of the suit. Refusing such an amendment would instead compel the Plaintiff to institute a separate infringement action, resulting in unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings. The Court also considered the fact that the amendment application had been filed after commencement of trial. It reiterated that the power to permit amendment is not completely restricted after commencement of trial, provided the requirements governing amendment are satisfied. In particular, the Court emphasised that amendments which are bona fide, legitimate, necessary for determining the real controversy and which do not cause irremediable prejudice should ordinarily be allowed, rather than being rejected on a hyper-technical approach. Applying these principles, the Court held that the proposed amendment did not change the nature or character of the suit, since the INDIA GATE mark was already the subject matter of the original proceedings and the amendment merely sought to incorporate the legal consequences flowing from its subsequent registration. The Court further held that allowing the amendment was necessary in the interests of justice and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. ## **Held** The Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiff’s application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and took the amended plaint on record. The amendment was permitted to incorporate the subsequent registration and well-known status of the ‘INDIA GATE’ mark and the consequential claim for infringement. However, considering the unexplained delay in filing the amendment application, the Court imposed costs of ₹50,000/-, payable to the Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Trust within two weeks. The Court also permitted the Defendants to file their written statement to the amended plaint and permitted the parties to file additional evidence confined to the amendments. ## **Conclusion** The decision reinforces the principle that subsequent registration of a trademark during the pendency of a passing off action can be incorporated into the existing proceedings by way of amendment, where the underlying factual foundation remains substantially the same. The judgment highlights the Court’s preference for a liberal and justice-oriented approach to amendments, particularly where refusal would compel the Plaintiff to institute parallel proceedings. The decision is particularly relevant to trademark proprietors who institute passing off proceedings before registration of their marks and subsequently obtain registration during the pendency of the suit. It indicates that subsequent statutory rights may, subject to the principles governing amendment, including the absence of irremediable prejudice, be brought on record in the existing proceedings rather than requiring a fresh infringement action. *Last Updated on 21 September, 2026* Get King Stubb & Kasiva’s legal updates in your Google feed[![Add King Stubb & Kasiva as a preferred source on Google](https://ksandk.com/wp-content/uploads/google_preferred_source_badge_light_en@2x.png)](https://www.google.com/preferences/source?q=https://ksandk.com/) --- ## Office Locations - [New Delhi](https://ksandk.com/locations/top-corporate-law-firm-in-delhi/) (HQ): +91-11-41318190 | info@ksandk.com - [Mumbai](https://ksandk.com/locations/top-corporate-law-firm-in-mumbai/): 3 offices (Nariman Point, Lower Parel, Andheri) | mumbai@ksandk.com - [Bangalore](https://ksandk.com/locations/top-corporate-law-firm-in-bangalore/): bangalore@ksandk.com - [Chennai](https://ksandk.com/locations/chennai/): chennai@ksandk.com - [Hyderabad](https://ksandk.com/locations/hyderabad/): hyderabad@ksandk.com - [Pune](https://ksandk.com/locations/pune/): pune@ksandk.com - [Kochi](https://ksandk.com/locations/kochi/): kochi@ksandk.com ## Contact - [Contact Page](https://ksandk.com/contact-us/) - General: info@ksandk.com | +91-11-41318190 - WhatsApp: +91-7428567444 - [Privacy Statement](https://ksandk.com/privacy-statement/) - [Terms of Use](https://ksandk.com/terms-of-use/)