Krbl Limited v. Praveen Kumar Buyyani & Ors.

FAO (COMM) 24/2024

The Delhi High Court allowed Krbl Limited's appeal, overturning a Commercial Court decision that had vacated an existing injunction. The court found that the respondent's use of 'Bharat Gate' for rice constituted clear infringement of the appellant's registered trademark 'India Gate.' Citing established legal precedents, the High Court held that prima facie evidence of infringement necessitates the continuation of the injunction to protect the goodwill and reputation of the original mark.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court
Case Number
FAO (COMM) 24/2024
Judge(s)
C. Hari Shankar

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Delhi High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Krbl Limited vs Praveen Kumar Buyyani & Ors. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkI.A. No. 3915/2009 in CS (OS) No. 2015/2007

Micolube India Ltd.vsMaggon Auto Centre & Anr.

The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking to stay a trade mark infringement suit due to pending rectification proceedings. The court ruled that while the suit claiming infringement of a registered trademark must be stayed until the validity of the registration is determined, the separate claim for 'passing off' can continue independently. This nuanced decision clarifies the scope of Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, allowing parties to pursue related claims even when one aspect of the litigation is paused.

trademark(T) CMA (TM) No.156 of 2023

Nalli Duraiswami Saroja (Late) (Through her son) Trading as Nalli Weaving CentervsN.Kuppuswami Chettiar

The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Nalli Duraiswami Saroja (Late) against a rectification order concerning her trademark. The court noted that despite repeated opportunities, the appellant failed to appear or prosecute the case. Consequently, the original registration was allowed to continue without challenge from the appellant's side.

trademark(T)OP(TM)/300/2023 (ORA/15/2019/TM/CHN)

Chirec Public SchoolvsShri Shakti Schools Private Limited

The Madras High Court dismissed Chirec Public School's petition seeking to expunge a registered trademark (CHIREC) belonging to Shri Shakti Schools Private Limited. The court held that since the petitioner had not obtained prior leave from the trial court, and was reserving its right to file a fresh rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trademarks Act, the current filing was legally unsustainable. This decision underscores the procedural requirements for challenging trademark registrations.

trademarkC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 90/2021

A.K. Al Muhaidib And SonsvsChaman Lal Sachdeva And Anr.

The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, removing the mark 'AL-WALIMAH' (TM No. 523217) from the register. The petitioner successfully argued that the respondent had failed to demonstrate bona fide use of the trademark in relation to goods in Class 30 for a continuous period of five years. Given the lack of evidence of genuine commercial use, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the removal of the mark.

trademarkCS(COMM) 527/2024

Jk Lakshmi Cement LimitedvsMr Satyawan Sehrawat & Anr.

The Delhi High Court decreed a suit filed by Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited against Mr Satyawan Sehrawat & Anr. following a successful out-of-court settlement. Defendant No. 1 acknowledged infringing the plaintiff's trademark rights and wrongly using 'J.K. Lakshmi Cement RMC'. The court formalized the agreement, which required the defendant to cease the wrongful use and surrender its GST registration obtained under the disputed trade name.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Facing a trademark dispute?

Arctic's TM litigation team handles ~120 trademark matters per year across India, EU, and UK. From oppositions to infringement actions, we build winning arguments from precedent.

Talk to our TM team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar trademark matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call