29 May 2025 Legal Updates

NOT NECESSARY TO USE TRADEMARK IN PHYSICAL FORM, MAY BE USED IN ANY OTHER RELATION TO GOODS: DELHI HIGH COURT

(a) Case Title: 

• KRB Enterprises & Ors. vs. M/s KRBL Limited 

(b) Court: 

• High Court of Delhi at New Delhi 

(c) Date of Decision: 

• 26 May 2025 

(d) Bench: 

• Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla & Hon’ble Ms. Justice Shalinder Kaur 

Facts:

The Appellants KRB Enterprises & Ors. was engaged in manufacturing/ trading rice, coffee etc. and the Respondents KRBL Limited was a well-established company in the rice business since 2000.   KRBL alleged trademark infringement by KRB Enterprises for using the mark "KRB KREB," which was deceptively similar to KRBL’s registered trademark "KRBL LIMITED" (with a diamond-shaped paddy device). 

KRBL claimed prior use, registration, and global reputation. KRB Enterprises argued honest adoption of "KRB" based on family initials (K, R, B) and alleged KRBL’s non-use of the mark on goods. 

The Commercial Court granted an interim injunction restraining KRB Enterprises from using "KRB" or any similar mark. 

Issues Decided:

1. Prima Facie Case for Infringement/Passing Off: 

The Court held that "KRB" and "KRBL" were deceptively similar, and both parties dealt in identical goods (rice).  KRBL’s mark was registered in Class 35 (services), but the Court ruled that similarity of goods/services (not just classification) determines infringement. 

2. Use of Corporate Name as Trademark: 

The Court rejected KRB’s argument that KRBL’s corporate name wasn’t a trademark. Under Section 2(1)(m) and (zb) of the Trade Marks Act, a name can function as a trademark if it distinguishes goods/services. 

3. Acquiescence & Delay:

KRB argued KRBL delayed filing the suit (since 2016) and had business dealings with them.  The Court held no acquiescence, as KRBL opposed KRB’s trademark applications in 2016 and acted promptly upon discovering KRB’s market use in 2022. 

4. Abandonment of Trademark: 

KRB claimed KRBL abandoned its Class 30 registration by withdrawing an application.  The Court accepted KRBL’s explanation (erroneous legal advice under GST) and noted its immediate re-application, showing no intent to abandon. 

5. Territorial Jurisdiction:  

KRB challenged the Commercial Court’s jurisdiction, but the High Court left this issue for trial. 

6. Balance of Convenience & Irreparable Injury: 

The injunction was upheld as KRBL demonstrated irreparable harm to its reputation, and the balance favoured protecting its established rights. 

Judgment:

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the injunction. It emphasized that Deceptive similarity between "KRB" and "KRBL";   KRBL’s prior rights and continuous use and the fact that there was no acquiescence or abandonment by KRBL. 

Key Legal Principles:

1. Trademark Infringement (Section 29): 

• Similarity of marks/goods and likelihood of confusion suffice for infringement, even if marks aren’t identical. 

2. Use of Mark (Section 2(2)(c)): 

• Use isn’t limited to physical goods; advertising/services also qualify. 

3. Acquiescence: 

• Requires intentional encouragement (not mere delay). Mere business transactions don’t prove acquiescence. 

4. Interim Injunctions: 

• Courts avoid interfering unless the lower court’s discretion is "perverse"