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 North Face Apparel CorpvsController of Patents and Designs
The North Face Apparel Corp challenged the Controller of Patents' refusal of its patent application (No. 202147026139) titled 'Systems and Methods for End-to-End Article Management' before the Madras High Court under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. The Controller had rejected the application citing lack of inventive step over prior art documents D21-D24. The Court held that the Controller erred by dissecting the claims into isolated elements rather than assessing the invention as a whole, and overlooked the use of spectrophotometer and invisible markers for tracking the manufacturing process, which were not disclosed in the cited prior art. The appeal was allowed and the Controller was directed to grant the patent.
Aventose Energy Private LimitedvsThe Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office Chennai
Aventose Energy Private Limited appealed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the refusal of its patent application (No. 202141019671) for a 'System and Method for Operating Automobiles with an Electric Drivetrain' featuring safe mode activation upon fault detection. The Madras High Court found that the Assistant Controller had contradicted the First Examination Report (which accepted novelty) by subsequently holding the invention lacked novelty without giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard. The court further held that the Controller improperly conflated novelty with inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and failed to properly analyze the claims against prior art documents D1–D4.
Apex Laboratories Pvt LtdvsElder Lifescience and Ambico Ayurvedic Health Care
Apex Laboratories Pvt Ltd, the prior adopter and registered proprietor of the trademark ZINCOVIT (TM No. 487453 in Class 5) since 1988, sought interim injunction against Elder Lifescience and Ambico Ayurvedic Health Care for using the deceptively similar mark NEO ZINCOVIT. The applicant also claimed copyright infringement of its registered artistic works (A-108878/2014) covering colour scheme, get-up, and layout. The Madras High Court was satisfied that the respondents were attempting to piggyback on the applicant's goodwill and granted interim injunctions on all three applications covering trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off.
Radico Khaitan LimitedvsPicadilly Agro Industries Limited
This Special Leave Petition arose from a judgment dated 29-05-2026 in CS No. 8/2025 passed by the District Judge, Karnal, Haryana, concerning a trademark dispute over the marks 'Cashmere' and 'Kashmyr' used in relation to beer and vodka. The Supreme Court noted that a First Appeal (FAO-COM-11-2026) was already pending before the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, listed for 28.10.2026. The Court disposed of the SLP without adjudicating it on merits, requesting the High Court to pass an appropriate order regarding the ad interim injunction on the scheduled date.
Maharaja Agrasen Technical Educational Society (Regd.)vsMaharaja Agrasen Himalayan Garhwal University
The plaintiff, Maharaja Agrasen Technical Educational Society, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant, Maharaja Agrasen Himalayan Garhwal University, alleging infringement and passing off regarding the use of the words 'Maharaja Agrasen' in the defendant's name. The Delhi High Court had previously granted a restraint order on 10.07.2026. During the pendency of the suit, the parties arrived at a settlement dated 14.09.2026, under which the defendant agreed to change its name through a statutory amendment while being permitted limited transitional use of its existing name. The court recorded the settlement, modified the interim order accordingly, and listed the matter for compliance reporting on 13.07.2027.
Varahi Diamonds And Finance LimitedvsSahil Vinay Mehra Trading As Mehra Sons Jewellers & Anr.
This is a commercial suit filed by Varahi Diamonds And Finance Limited against Sahil Vinay Mehra Trading As Mehra Sons Jewellers & Anr. before the Delhi High Court. The order is primarily procedural, dealing with the registration of the plaint, issuance of summons, directions for filing pleadings, and an interim injunction application. The matter was referred to mediation, with parties directed to appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
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.