India Gate vs Bharat Gate: Delhi High Court Reinforces Protection for Well-Known Trademarks

 

Introduction

In a significant ruling that reaffirms the strength of trademark protection in India, the Delhi High Court has recently ruled in favor of KRBL Limited, the owner of the iconic India Gate rice brand, against Praveen Kumar Buyyani, the proprietor of a competing brand titled Bharat Gate. The case explores fundamental issues of trademark infringement, passing off, and the critical importance of consumer perception in the fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) sector.

Background

KRBL Limited has been selling premium-quality basmati rice under the registered trademark India Gate since 1993, enjoying widespread recognition in both domestic and international markets. In 2020, Praveen Kumar Buyyani introduced a new brand called Bharat Gate in the economy segment, priced significantly lower than India Gate. The product was sold online and in physical retail outlets, raising concerns about potential confusion among consumers.

KRBL alleged that the use of the mark Bharat Gate constituted infringement and passing off under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and sought an injunction before the Delhi Commercial Court.

Commercial Court's Findings

In its initial order dated October 9, 2020, the Commercial Court granted an ex parte interim injunction restraining the respondent from using the mark Bharat Gate. However, this injunction was later vacated in January 2024. The Commercial Court reasoned that:

• The words “India” and “Bharat” are interchangeable and commonly used.

• “Gate” is a non-distinctive suffix.

• The packaging and trade dress of the two products were sufficiently different.

Aggrieved by the lifting of the injunction, KRBL filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court.

Appellant’s (KRBL) Arguments

KRBL argued that:

• India Gate is a well-known mark with decades of goodwill.

• “India” and “Bharat” are synonymous and used interchangeably in consumer perception.

• “Gate” adds to the conceptual and semantic similarity between the two marks.

• In FMCG markets, consumers often rely on general impressions rather than close examination.

• The cumulative effect of the similarities could mislead consumers, dilute brand identity, and cause reputational damage.

KRBL invoked Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act and the common law principle of passing off, emphasising the likelihood of confusion.

Respondent’s Arguments

Praveen Kumar Buyyani contended that:

• The mark Bharat Gate was adopted in good faith.

• "India" and "Bharat" are generic national identifiers and not subject to exclusive rights.

• “Gate” is a common suffix in Indian culture and lacks distinctiveness.

• Visual and stylistic differences in packaging eliminate the risk of confusion.

• Consumers in the rice segment are discerning and can differentiate based on branding, quality, and pricing.

The respondent leaned on the Commercial Court’s 2024 order and emphasised that conceptual similarity alone does not amount to infringement.

Legal Issues Before the High Court

1. Trademark Infringement: Whether Bharat Gate infringes on the India Gate mark conceptually, semantically, and visually.

2. Likelihood of Confusion: Whether an average consumer is likely to associate Bharat Gate with India Gate.

3. Passing Off: Whether the use of Bharat Gate amounts to misrepresentation likely to harm the goodwill of the appellant’s brand.

4. Justifiability of Interim Relief: Whether the Commercial Court’s decision to vacate the initial injunction was legally sustainable.

Delhi High Court’s Final Judgment

The Delhi High Court ruled in favour of KRBL, observing:

• India Gate is a well-known mark deserving enhanced protection.

• Replacing “India” with “Bharat” did not remove conceptual similarity; both refer to the same country.

• While “Gate” may be generic on its own, its inclusion in both marks created a deceptive similarity.

• In FMCG products like rice, consumers rely on impressions, not side-by-side comparisons.

• The respondent’s adoption of the mark appeared opportunistic, even in the absence of proven bad faith.

The Court reinstated the interim injunction, preventing the use of Bharat Gate or any similar mark, and overturned the Commercial Court's 2024 order.

Conclusion

This judgment is a milestone in reinforcing the strength and scope of protection available to well-known trademarks in India. The Delhi High Court’s approach recognizes the evolving nature of consumer behavior and the importance of conceptual, phonetic, and structural similarities in assessing trademark infringement.

For brands investing in long-term goodwill, this decision serves as a reaffirmation that Indian courts will vigilantly guard against misappropriation, dilution, and deceptive similarities in competitive markets.

Need Help with Trademark Protection?

At Vijaytha Legal Associates, we specialise in intellectual property law, including trademark registration, prosecution, and litigation. Whether you're protecting your brand or defending it, we are here to help.
📧 Contact us at officialvijaytha@gmail.com or follow us on LinkedIn for more insights on legal developments in India.