Short Summary
The Delhi High Court granted an injunction in favor of Grm Foodkraft Pvt Ltd, restraining Ks Agro Impex from selling Golden Sella Basmati Rice in packaging that is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade dress. The court found that the defendant's packaging was likely to cause confusion among consumers and harm the plaintiff's goodwill. The defendant is allowed to continue selling Golden Sella Basmati Rice using distinct and non-deceptive packaging. The case highlights the importance of protecting intellectual property rights, particularly in the FMCG sector.
Detailed Summary
[Cites
55
, Cited by
0
]
Delhi High Court
Grm Foodkraft Pvt Ltd And Anr vs Ks Agro Impex And Anr on 29 May, 2026
Author:
Jyoti Singh
Bench:
Jyoti Singh
$~
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 29th May, 2026
+ CS(COMM) 637/2024
GRM FOODKRAFT PVT LTD AND ANR .....Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Utkarsh Joshi, Ms. Sudarshana
Bandyopadhyay, Mr. Vinay Thakur and Mr.
Abhishek, Advocates.
versus
KS AGRO IMPEX AND ANR. .....Defendants
Through: Mr. Chander M. Lall, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Ankur Sangal, Mr. Ankit
Arvind, Mr. Shaurya Pandey and Ms. Ananya
Mehan, Advocates for D-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
JUDGEMENT
JYOTI SINGH, J.
I.A. 35064/2024 (u/O XXXIX Rules 1 and 2
CPC
, filed by Plaintiff) and
I.A. 40114/2024 (u/O XXXIX
Rule 4 CPC
, filed by Defendant No. 1)
1. This judgment will dispose of an application filed by the Plaintiffs
under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2
CPC
and an application under
Order
XXXIX Rule 4 CPC
filed on behalf of Defendant No.1.
2. To the extent necessary, the case set up by the Plaintiffs is that
Plaintiff No.1 is a wholly owned subsidiary of Plaintiff No.2 and was
incorporated on 07.07.2020 and Plaintiff No.2 is an entity registered under
Companies Act, 1956
and was incorporated in 1995. In 1974, Plaintiffs'
predecessors commenced business of rice milling and processing as a family
business by the name of Garg Rice & General Mills. Between 1974-1979,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR CS(COMM) 637/2024 Page 1 of 62
Signing Date:08.06.2026
00:07:10
they established the first rice milling plant in Panipat, Haryana and during
this time they were only engaged in sale of rice in the domestic market.
Another milling plant was set up in 1980 and later in 1988, they commenced
their international business with export to Saudi Arabia and other middle
eastern countries. By 2024, Plaintiff No.2 had expanded its market presence
to encompass more than 38 countries, thereby attaining recognition of being
among the top basmati rice exporters from India.
3. It is stated that Plaintiffs' products earned recognition and
certification from prominent global associations for excellence in food
safety, packaging, storage and distribution and their products are certified
under Good Manufacturing Practice and Hazard Analysis Critical Control
Point standards, ensuring that rigorous protocols are followed throughout the
manufacturing process to guarantee safety and quality of its offerings.
Plaintiffs' goodwill and reputation, both internationally and in India, is
established by sales turnover for financial years 2020-2021 to 2022-2023, as
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Grm Foodkraft Pvt Ltd And Anr vs Ks Agro Impex And Anr is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
The Goodyear Tire Rubber CompanyvsDeva Nand Sukhia
The Delhi High Court issued an order directing the Trademark Registrar to immediately comply with a prior judgment favoring Goodyear Tire Rubber Company. The court confirmed that the defendant had paid the stipulated litigation costs. Crucially, the Registrar was directed to remove the defendant's infringing 'GOOD YEAR' trademark (No. 1120219) from the register and dispose of related rectification and opposition proceedings within one week. This order solidifies Goodyear's position against unauthorized use of its mark.
Mohammed Faisal T.P.vsThe Registrar of Trade Mark
The Madras High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Mohammed Faisal T.P. seeking an expeditious processing of his pending Trademark Application No. 5007957. The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to ensure that the application is processed within a stipulated timeframe. This order provides clarity and urgency regarding administrative delays in trademark registration processes.
Novartis AgvsMSN Laboratories Pvt Ltd
The parties presented joint issues to the Delhi High Court. The court framed multiple issues concerning the validity of Indian Patent IN 233161 based on various grounds (prior art, inventive step, etc.) and whether the defendant's manufacture/sale of Eltrombopag Olamine infringes this patent.
UTI Infrastructure Technology and Services Ltd.vsExtra Tech World and Ors.
The petitioner filed a Leave Petition seeking permission from the Bombay High Court under Clause XII of the Letters Patent Act to file a Commercial Intellectual Property Rights Suit against the respondents. The core issue was establishing the court's jurisdiction, given that the infringing websites were accessible across India.
Divya NoveltyvsCommissioner of Customs, Mundra
Divya Novelty appealed against the absolute confiscation and penalties imposed by Customs for importing shoes bearing famous brand names (NIKE, ADIDAS, etc.), which were deemed counterfeit. The Tribunal found that since the required procedure under IPR Enforcement Rules was not followed, the goods could not be held prohibited for confiscation. Furthermore, the valuation method used by the Revenue was deemed illegal.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.