Delhi High Court affirms that a trademark registered for services (Class 35) can extend protection to goods (Class 30) when goods and services are allied — reinforcing the principle of likelihood of confusion over rigid class boundaries.
The dispute arose between KRB Enterprises & Ors. (appellants) and KRBL Limited (respondent), the renowned company behind the 'India Gate' brand. KRBL had adopted the trademark 'KRBL' since 2000, registered under Class 35 (advertising, marketing, wholesale/retail services) and formerly under Class 30 (rice, food products). The appellants adopted 'KRB' in 2009, selling rice, sugar, coffee under Class 30. The District Judge granted an ad-interim injunction restraining use of 'KRB', which was challenged before the High Court of Delhi.
Relying on Section 2(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Google LLC v. DRS Logistics, the Division Bench held that a trademark's use includes not only physical affixation but also any relation to goods via advertising, marketing, or brand visibility. KRBL's continuous use of 'KRBL' on invoices, packaging, and promotional material since 2000 established it as a source identifier under Section 2(1)(zb). Even though the mark was registered in Class 35 (services), the allied nature of rice, food products, and their marketing made the use on goods (Class 30) infringing when a deceptively similar mark 'KRB' was used for identical goods (rice, sugar).
Where goods and services are closely related (e.g., rice and its marketing/distribution), a trademark registered for services can be enforced against goods to avoid consumer confusion. The court prioritized likelihood of confusion over formal class boundaries.
Marks 'KRBL' and 'KRB' were held deceptively similar — dominant part 'KRB' nearly identical. Given identical trade channels (rice industry), the public would likely associate 'KRB' with KRBL, causing infringement and passing off.
The appellants argued that KRBL had acquiesced due to commercial dealings since 2014 and abandoned the Class 30 registration. The court rejected both:
Parle Products v. J.P & Co., Stiefel Laboratories v. Ajanta Pharma: marks must be compared as a whole. 'KRB' and 'KRBL' share visually and phonetically similar core, causing confusion.
Laxmikant Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah: a trade name can function as trademark if it identifies source. KRBL used 'KRBL' extensively as source identifier.
Wander Ltd. v. Antox India: Appellate court will not interfere with discretionary injunction unless perverse or arbitrary. The bench found the trial judge's reasoning sound and based on evidence.
FDC Limited v. Docsuggest Healthcare Services: reinforces allied goods/services theory, adopted by Delhi HC to prevent circumvention of trademark rights via class distinctions.
The Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur dismissed the appeal (FAO(COMM) 69/2024) on May 26, 2025, upholding the ad-interim injunction against the appellants. The judgment reinforces that:
Case citation: KRB Enterprises & Ors. vs KRBL Limited, FAO(COMM) 69/2024, 2025:DHC:4364-DB. The decision serves as a vital guide for brand owners whose trademarks are used both as trade names and in connection with allied goods/services.
While registering a trademark, consider covering both goods classes and allied service classes (e.g., Class 35) to strengthen protection. However, even without dual registration, courts may extend protection if goods and services are intertwined.
Continuous use as a source identifier (invoices, ads, digital presence) builds a strong case for trademark protection beyond literal class boundaries. KRBL’s extensive sales and promotional documents proved decisive.
Acquiescence defense fails if the registered proprietor acts as soon as market use becomes known. Trademark watch services and swift enforcement remain critical.
The case shows that an interim injunction may be granted at the threshold when prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury are in favour of the prior user/registrant.
Analysis based on article by: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor (Patent & Trademark Attorney), High Court of Delhi. The case summary and legal reasoning are derived from the original judgment and commentary for educational purposes.
Disclaimer: This content is for informational and analytical purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult qualified professionals for specific trademark disputes. Court observations and principles are subject to judicial interpretation.