Delhi District Court
Krbl Limited vs Moi Commodities India Private Limited on 3 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY PANDEY
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT-10) CENTRAL,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS Comm 2304/22
KRBL LIMITED
REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
5190, LAHORI GATE
DELHI-110006
ALSO AT:
CORPORATE OFFICE AT:
C-32, 5TH& 6TH FLOOR
SECTOR-62, NOIDA - 201301
(UP) ...PLAINTIFF
Versus
MOI COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
216, 2ND FLOOR,
JACKSON CROWN HEIGHTS,
PLOT NO. 3 B1 TWIN DIST. CENTRE SECTOR-10,
ROHINI, DELHI- 110085
EMAIL: [email protected] ... DEFENDANT
Date of Institution : 10.10.2022
Date of Arguments : 03.12.2025
Date of Judgment : 03.12.2025
JUDGMENT:-
SUIT UNDER SECTION 135 OF THE TRADEMARKS ACT, 1999 FOR RESTRAINING PASSING OFF OF TRADE MARK AND TRADE DRESS; SECTION 55 OF KRBL LIMITED vs MOI COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Page no. 1 of 30 CS Comm 2304/22 Digitally signed by AJAY AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.12.03 15:52:35 +0530 COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957 FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION RESTRAINING INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT; DELIVERY UP, RENDITION OF ACCOUNTS, DAMAGES ETC.
1. The present suit under Trademarks Act and Copyright Act has been filed by plaintiff against the defendant.
2. It is inter-alia stated in the plaint that :-
2.1 Plaintiff is engaged in the business of processing, marketing and exporting of various kinds of rice and other food products including basmati rice under the trade mark INDIA GATE, and its logo (word mark INDIA GATE along with a device of monument of India Gate) (hereinafter collectively referred to as "trade mark/label/logo INDIA GATE") and various labels/packaging/trade dress comprising of the said trade mark/label/logo along with other distinguishing features such as placement of elements, lettering, colour combination etc..
2.2 Plaintiff is world's largest rice miller, a leading basmati rice exporter and also India's first integrated rice company. The Plaintiff has been openly, continuously, extensively, exclusively and without any KRBL LIMITED vs MOI COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Page no. 2 of 30 CS Comm 2304/22 interruption using the trade mark/label/logo INDIA GATE in relation to its said goods and business at least since the year 1993.
2.3 Trademark INDIA GATE of plaintiff was registered vide registration certificate dated 18.06.1993 with following details:-
Trade Mark INDIA GATE
Application No./ 599833
Date of Application 18.06.1993
Class 30
User Detail 01.01.1979
Status Registered
Valid upto 18.06.2023
Disclaimer Registration of this Trade
Mark shall give no right to the
exclusive use of the word
INDIA
2.4 The artwork involved in the Plaintiff's trade
mark/label/logo is an original artistic work
within the meaning of the Copyright Act, 1957 of which the Plaintiff is the owner and the same is duly registered under the Copyright Act, 1957 details whereof are provided herein below:
KRBL LIMITED vs MOI COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Page no. 3 of 30 CS Comm 2304/22 Label Registration A-75495/2006 No. Details of first publication 1999 Status Registered 2.5 During the course of its business, the Plaintiff has been creating and using various labels/packaging/trade dresses for its said goods and business. The said labels/packaging/trade dresses also act as a trade mark and source identifier and are protected under the laws of Trade Mark and Copyright.
One such label/packaging/trade dress relevant for the instant suit is INDIA GATE CLASSIC label/packaging/trade dress (hereinafter referred to as "INDIA GATE CLASSIC Label/packaging/trade dress"). The Plaintiff, in the year 2005, honestly and bonafidely adopted the said unique INDIA GATE CLASSIC Label/packaging/trade dress. The Plaintiff has also applied for registration of said KRBL LIMITED vs MOI COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Page no. 4 of 30 CS Comm 2304/22 INDIA GATE CLASSIC Label/packaging/trade dress under TM Application No. 1988919 in Class 30 and the same is pending registration. The Plaintiff has also been granted copyright registration for INDIA GATE CLASSIC Label/packaging/trade dress , details whereof are provided herein below:
Artistic work Registration A-103239/2013 No. Details of first publication 2005 Status Registered 2.6 The said INDIA GATE CLASSIC Label/packaging/trade dress of the Plaintiff refers and includes the unique lettering style and colour combination, features of placement, distinctive getup, makeup including the trade mark/label/logo INDIA GATE etc. KRBL LIMITED vs MOI COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Page no. 5 of 30 CS Comm 2304/22 2.7 The Plaintiff has been carrying on its business in India as well as Overseas through exports from India (including the Middle East countries, Australia, European Countries, USA, South Africa, Canada, South East Asian Countries like Singapore, Malaysia etc.). The Plaintiff's goods are sold and traded through its extensive marketing, distribution and dealership network and also through retail, internet and e-commerce.
2.8 The Plaintiff has also been granted copyright registrations in many countries such as Canada, China, USA. These copyright registrations are relevant and enforceable in India as Canada, China, USA and India have ratified copyright enforcement laws under Berne Convention and Universal Copyright Convention.
2.9 The Plaintiff has regularly and continuously been promoting its distinctive trade mark/label/logo INDIA GATE and INDIA GATE CLASSIC Label/packaging/trade dress in relation to the said goods and business through extensive advertisements, publicities, promotions and marketing including through the visual and print media, leading Newspapers, trade literature & magazines, leading News and Entertainment channels e.g., STAR T.V, AAJ TAK, NDTV, INDIA T.V.
and various other regional and local channels in different parts of the country. The plaintiff also sponsored various KRBL LIMITED vs MOI COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Page no. 6 of 30 CS Comm 2304/22 events and incurred huge expenses in relation to the promotion of its brand.
2.10 The Plaintiff also displays its said goods under the trade mark/ label/logo/packaging/trade dress INDIA GATE and INDIA GATE CLASSIC Label/packaging/trade dress on the internet through its website namely www.krblrice.com.
2.11 The Plaintiff's goods and business under the trade mark/label/logo INDIA GATE and INDIA GATE CLASSIC Label/packaging/trade dress have presence at all known retailers like Big Bazar, Reliance fresh, Big Apple, Sabka Bazar etc., at Mega Malls, at e-commerce platforms like Flipkart, Amazon, Bigbasket etc., and also at every nook and corner grocery shop.
2.12 The Plaintiff has been granted many awards for maintenance of excellent quality as specified in para no.18 of the plaint.
2.13 The Plaintiff's trade mark/label/logo INDIA GATE and INDIA GATE CLASSIC Label/packaging/trade dress have acquired enviable and enduring goodwill, reputation in India and also in the international markets. The Plaintiff's trade mark/label/logo INDIA GATE and INDIA GATE CLASSIC Label/packaging/trade dress have become distinctive, associated and acquired secondary significance with the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff's goods and business.
KRBL LIMITED vs MOI COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Page no. 7 of 30 CS Comm 2304/22 2.14 To the best of the Plaintiff's knowledge and belief, the Defendant is involved in the manufacturing, marketing, exporting and selling of rice (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned goods') under structurally, conceptually and visually deceptively similar mark/logo /LEGEND and a deceptively similar label/packaging/trade dress .
2.15 The Plaintiff first came to know about the impugned goods under the impugned mark/logo/label/packaging/trade dress in the first week of July 2022, when the Plaintiff came across the sale of the impugned goods on a website https://www.jumlah.qareeb.com. The Plaintiff, thereafter, made an inquiry into the manufacturers of the impugned goods under the impugned mark and learnt that the impugned goods were manufactured, marketed and exported from India by the Defendant herein.
KRBL LIMITED vs MOI COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Page no. 8 of 30 CS Comm 2304/22 2.16 The impugned mark/logo/packaging/trade- dress is a deliberate attempt of the defendant to deceive the public and the same is deceptively similar with the trade-label/logo/trade-dress of plaintiff and amounts to infringement of copyright of plaintiff. These acts of the defendant further amount to passing off, delusion of plaintiff's trademark and unfair competition.
2.17 Plaintiff therefore filed this suit for permanent injunction, mandatory injunction, rendition of accounts, damages etc. seeking restraint order against the defendant from using, soliciting, manufacturing, selling, offering for sale and advertising for rice or any other food articles under the impugned mark/logo/label/packaging/trade-dress or any other mark/logo/label/packaging/trade dress that is identical/deceptively similar to Plaintiff's trade mark/label/logo trade mark/label/logo /INDIA GATE and INDIA GATE CLASSIC Label/ packaging/trade dress or any other logo/ label that is identical and/or deceptively similar to Plaintiff's logo INDIA GATE and INDIA GATE CLASSIC Label/ KRBL LIMITED vs MOI COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Page no. 9 of 30 CS Comm 2304/22 packaging/trade dress.
3. Defendant filed his written statement taking preliminary objections that the suit of plaintiff is misuse of process of law; that there is no cause of action; that the plaintiff has not mentioned from where the search on the website jumlah.qareeb.com was done; that the suit is barred by non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties. It is stated that the owner of the Legend Brand is 'Qeemah and Duka Groceries Company' at Jeddah/Tahlia Street/Al-Salam Building. He has business in Kingdon of Saudi Arabia (KSA) with the brand name 'Legend', which is registered at KSA bearing registration no. 1437007602 dated 12.01.2016 in Class 30. It is further stated that there is no similarity whatsoever with the plaintiff's brand INDIA GATE. The plaintiff has been continuously approaching the defendant customer (owner of impugned mark) for listing and selling their products. It is further stated that plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hand but with ulterior intention to harass and cause hindrance in supply chain. There is no cause of action as products are not being sold in Indian territory. It is further stated that defendant is a manufacturer/packer and is an Indian subsidiary company of Mewah Group, a leading integrated global Singapore base company and into food business for more than six decades and has presence in more than 100 countries worldwide incorporated in the year 2012. KRBL LIMITED vs MOI COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Page no. 10 of 30 CS Comm 2304/22
4. It is further stated that plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit against the defendant. The package cited by plaintiff has no correlation with the package being supplied by defendant and the package is of some other packer. It is further stated that impugned mark is not containing any mark of India Gate or any similar logo etc. but of Taj Mahal. The marks of plaintiff and defendant are not similar/identical. It is further stated that trademark of plaintiff has all generic words which are publici juris and per-se non-registrable and should be refused registration under section 9 of Trademarks Act, 1999. It is further stated that suit of plaintiff is not maintainable and is vexatious and lacks merit and is liable to dismissed as no cause of action has ever arisen in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
5. In reply on merits, it is denied that plaintiff, its predecessors, assignors in rights/title/interest, ground companies, subsidiaries, affiliates etc. is engaged in business of processing, marketing and exporting of various kinds of rice and other food products including basmati rice under the trademark INDIA GATE.
6. It is further stated that on the basis of trilogy of appearance, sound and meaning and on comparing the mark applied and cited marks, the comparison fails on all the counts. Reliance in this respect is placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Corn KRBL LIMITED vs MOI COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Page no. 11 of 30 CS Comm 2304/22 Products Refining Co. Vs Shangrilafood Products Ltd. Hence, it is stated that claim of plaintiff is absolutely false, fabricated, manipulated, concocted, wrong and frivolous. It is further denied that artwork involved in plaintiff's trademark/label/logo is an original artistic work within the meaning of Copyright Act, 1957 of which plaintiff is the owner and same is duly registered under the Copyright Act, 1957. It is further reiterated that words INDIA, GATE, CLASSIC are all generic words and publici juris in nature and as such are not registrable. It is further denied that during course of its business, plaintiff has been creating and using various labels/packaging/trade dresses for its said goods and business and that same acts as a trademark and source identifier and are protected under the laws of trademark and copyright. It is further denied that in the year 2005, plaintiff has honestly and bonfidely adopted the said unique INDIA GATE CLASSIC under TM application no.198919 in Class 30 and same is pending registration. The grant of registration for INDIA GATE CLASSIC in favour of plaintiff is also denied. It is further denied that by virtue of said copyrights, plaintiff has exclusive right to use, publish, reproduce, communicate, make copies, distribute, exhibit and otherwise deal with INDIA GATE CLASSIC.
7. It is further denied that plaintiff has been carrying on its business in India as well as Overseas through KRBL LIMITED vs MOI COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Page no. 12 of 30 CS Comm 2304/22 exports from India. It is further denied that export of plaintiff's produce under the trademark/label/logo INDIA GATE and INDIA GATE CLASSIC label/packaging/trade-dress in foreign countries amounts to use in India within the meaning of section 56 of The Act. It is further denied that trademark of plaintiff is registered in many countries/regions of the world. It is further denied that plaintiff also displays its goods under the trademark/label/logo/packaging INDIA GATE and INDIA GATE CLASSIC on internet through is website namely www.krblrice.com. It is further denied that plaintiff has been globally using the said website in course of trade as proprietor thereof in relation to its said goods and business under the trademark/label/logo INDIA GATE and INDIA GATE CLASSIC. It is further denied that plaintiff has built-up valuable trade under trademark/label/logo INDIA GATE and INDIA GATE CLASSIC and conducted handsome business thereunder. It is further denied that goods of plaintiff and business under the trademark/label/logo INDIA GATE and INDIA GATE CLASSIC label/packaging/trade-dress have presence at all known retailers like Big Bazar, Reliance Fresh, Big Apple, Sabka Bazar etc, at Mega Malls and at e-commerce platforms like Flipkart, Amazon, Bigbasket etc.
8. It is further denied that defendant is exporting and selling structurally, conceptually and visually KRBL LIMITED vs MOI COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Page no. 13 of 30 CS Comm 2304/22 deceptively similar goods. It is however reiterated that defendant is part of Mewah Group. It is further denied that plaintiff first came to know about the impugned goods under the impugned mark/logo/label/packaging/trade-dress in first week of July 2022 when the plaintiff came across the sale of impugned goods on website www.jumlah.qareeb.com. It is further denied that plaintiff is aggrieved by defendant's adoption and use of impugned mark/logo/label/packaging/trade-dress that is deceptively similar to plaintiff's trademark/label/logo. It is however stated that defendant is a third party and contract manufacturer and has nothing to do with the brand except with the quality and supply of rice of impugned brand. It is further stated that defendant is merely a packer and not the brand owner and the brand is registered and has no similarity whatsoever with the plaintiff's brand. The brand name Legend is a unique name and has no similarity with the name India Gate. It is further denied that defendant is portraying themselves as plaintiff's authorized, licensed and franchised manufactures and traders. It is denied that registered office of defendant is 5190, Lahori Gate, Delhi-110006. It is stated that registered address of defendant is at 216, 2nd Floor, Jackson Crown Heights, Plot No. 3B1 Twin District Centre, Sector-10, Rohini, New Delhi-110085. Dismissal of suit is prayed.
KRBL LIMITED vs MOI COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Page no. 14 of 30 CS Comm 2304/22
9. Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of defendant thereby reiterating the facts stated in the plaint and denying contrary allegations of the written statement.
10. Vide order dated 29.10.2025 following issues were framed :-
1) Whether suit filed by the plaintiff is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties? OPD.
2) Whether the defendant had not distributed, supplied or produced the alleged counterfeit products in the Indian market, if so, its effect? OPD.
3) Whether the defendant has violated or infringed the trademark/tradedress of the plaintiff and passed off his goods? OPP.
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction, as prayed? OPP.
5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed? OPP.
6) Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of rendition of account or in the alternative a decree of damages, if so, to what amount? OPP.
7) Relief.
11. PW-1 Ms. Shruti Dhingra, AR of plaintiff filed her affidavit in evidence Ex.PW1/A. She proved all relevant documents mentioned in her affidavit in evidence as Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/32.
KRBL LIMITED vs MOI COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Page no. 15 of 30 CS Comm 2304/22
12. Vide order dated 03.12.2025, since none was appearing on behalf of defendant, defendant was proceeded ex-parte and DE was closed.
13. Arguments were addressed by learned counsel for plaintiff.
14. Learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that the packaging and trade-dress of the INDIA GATE CLASSIC Basmati Rice of the plaintiff is original art work which is registered in favour of plaintiff and the defendant has committed almost exact imitation of the same in his packing/trade-dress of LEGEND Basmati Rice.
15. Learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to supplement his arguments that the court has to consider only broad outlook of the packaging and close examination of the two packagings to search distinctiveness in them is not required.
16. Learned counsel for plaintiff has further argued that defendant has not appeared in the present case to rebut the case of plaintiff. No cross-examination was conducted on behalf of defendant to substantiate its stand taken in the written statement.
17. Arguments considered. Record perused.
18. Issue wise findings of the court are as under :-
KRBL LIMITED vs MOI COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Page no. 16 of 30 CS Comm 2304/22 Issue no.1 :- Whether suit filed by the plaintiff is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties? OPD.
19. Onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant. No evidence has been led by the defendant. Rather the defendant stopped appearance after allowing application for injunction vide order dated 02.06.2025. Even if for the sake of arguments it is presumed that the brand LEGEND is owned by some third party entity, the defendant has himself admitted that he is doing packaging for the said brand. In the facts and circumstances, it is rightly submitted by learned Sh. Somnath De that even as per the averments in the written statement, defendant is actively involved in the alleged infringement.
20. Hence, the suit against the defendant would be maintainable. In the facts and circumstances and in the absence of any evidence by the defendant this issue is decided against the defendant.
Issue no.2 :- Whether the defendant had not distributed, supplied or produced the alleged counterfeit products in the Indian market, if so, its effect? OPD.
21. Onus to prove this issue was against upon the defendant. In the absence of any evidence by defendant and in view of the fact that the alleged packaging of the Basmati Rice bears the name of the defendant as exporter and the website through which the alleged KRBL LIMITED vs MOI COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Page no. 17 of 30 CS Comm 2304/22 infringed product is sold is widely accessible in the Indian market as well as within the jurisdiction of this court, it is rightly submitted by learned Sh. Somnath De that this issue need to be decided against the defendant. Held accordingly.
Issue no.3 :- Whether the defendant has violated or infringed the trademark/tradedress of the plaintiff and passed off his goods? OPP.
22. Onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. By its unrebutted testimony, plaintiff has proved ownership of the trademark INDIA GATE and INDIA GATE CLASSIC Label/ packaging/trade dress. The unique dressing of the product of plaintiff is Ex.PW1/1. Same being an independent artistic work, is also proved by unrebutted testimony of plaintiff. Plaintiff has huge presence with large sale figures in India and international market as narrated by its witness.
23. PW-1 has proved the alleged deceptively similar packaging of the defendant as Ex.PW1/2.
24. When the packaging of the plaintiff Ex.PW1/1 and that of the defendant Ex.PW1/2 are compared, following similarities as contained in the chart in para no.26 of the plaint are found :-
i. The trade mark INDIA i. The mark LEGEND GATE written in bold written in bold and KRBL LIMITED vs MOI COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Page no. 18 of 30 CS Comm 2304/22 and white font inside a white font inside an red coloured identical red coloured Rectangular box Rectangular box ii. BASMATI RICE ii. BASMATI RICE CLASSIS written CLASSIS written bellow red coloured below red coloured Rectangular box Rectangular box iii. Red colour border iii. Red colour border iv. Red and yellowish iv. Red and yellowish colour combination colour combination used in used in label/pakaging/trade label/pakaging/trade dress dress v. Inward shaping arcs on v. Inward shaping arcs on the inner border the inner border vi. red circle on the bottom vi. red circle on the bottom left left vii. Rice bowl shown at the vii. Rice bowl shown at the bottom of packaging bottom of packaging viii. Packgaing gives ides of viii. Packgaing gives ides of mediavial city by using mediavial city by using INDIA GATE TAJ MAHAL ix. maner of writing ix. Identical maner of description on back writing description on packaging back packaging
25. A comparative chart of the different trade-dresses KRBL LIMITED vs MOI COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Page no. 19 of 30 CS Comm 2304/22 which were found imitating or infringing on the basis of some of the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for plaintiff is prepared herein below :-
S. No. Case Name Date of Label of Label of Comment Decision Plaintiff Defendant s
1. COLGATE V. 29.10.2003 ANCHOR 108(2003) DLT51 In all these cases Hon'ble Courts compared the trade-
dresses of the defendant with that of the plaintiff's trade-
dress. An injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff considerin g that the trade-
dresses of the defendant were having almost similar or KRBL LIMITED vs MOI COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Page no. 20 of 30 CS Comm 2304/22 confusingl y similar lay out, design, colour scheme, getup, arrangme nt of artistic features, lettering styles etc. Injunction s were allowed considerin g that the goods of both the parties were in the same classes and that the chances of likelihood of confusion cannot be ruled out.
Variants of the art works in the packaging of the defendant, whenever found close to reproducti on or deceptivel y or confusingl KRBL LIMITED vs MOI COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Page no. 21 of 30 CS Comm 2304/22 y similar reproducti on of art work of plaintiff were held as infringem ent of the plaintiff's copyright in the packaging s.
2. FERRERO 13.03.2014 SPA V. RAJ BAID CS(OS) 404/2012 MANU/ DE/388 0/2014
3. DEVAGIRI 01.02.2016 FARMS V. SANJAY KAPUR 2016(65)PT C34 9 (DEL) KRBL LIMITED vs MOI COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Page no. 22 of 30 CS Comm 2304/22 KRBL LIMITED vs MOI COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Page no. 23 of 30 CS Comm 2304/22
4. MOTHER 15.07.2015 DAIRY FRUIT & VEGETABL E PRIVATE LIMITED V. SRI VINAYAKA MILK PRODUCTS CS(OS) NO.
144/201126. On comparison of the packagings Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/2, it clearly appears that the defendant has adopted a deceptively similar packaging with that of the plaintiff. The overall impression of the packaging of the defendant to a common consumer acquainted with the plaintiff's brand may be the same. Section 2 (1)(h) of KRBL LIMITED vs MOI COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Page no. 24 of 30 CS Comm 2304/22 The Trademark Act 1999 defines "deceptively similar" - A mark shall be deemed to be deceptively similar to another mark if it so nearly resembles that other mark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion.
27. As per unrebutted testimony of plaintiff, said packaging of the plaintiff is in market since the year 2005. Plaintiff has sales worth hundreds of crores in India and abroad. Plaintiff has been granted many awards by different authorities and has incurred huge expenses in sales, advertising etc. Copying the trade- dress of the plaintiff or adopting a trade-dress which is deceptively similar to the trade-dress of plaintiff, in the facts and circumstances amounts to violation of the trademark and copyright of the plaintiff.
28. This issue is accordingly liable to be decided against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff.
Issue no.4:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction, as prayed? OPP.
29. Consequence of the decision of issue no.3 in favour of plaintiff, is that the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction for restraining the defendant as per the prayer in plaint. This issue is also decided in favour of plaintiff.
Issue no.5:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed? OPP.
30. In the prayer for a decree for mandatory KRBL LIMITED vs MOI COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Page no. 25 of 30 CS Comm 2304/22 injunction, plaintiff has prayed for delivery of all infringing/violative goods whether finished or unfinished to plaintiff for destruction. This court is of the humble opinion that when no raid was conducted in the premises of the defendant and when there is nothing on record to suggest what infringing material is actually available with the defendant, grant of this relief may be vague and may continue to drag both the parties in litigation and may consume precious time of the executing court in deciding whether any infringing material was available with the defendant at the time of passing of decree. Hence, this relief is modified and defendant is directed to destroy and not to use all or any of the infringing/violative goods whether finished or unfinished bearing impugned mark/logo/label/packaging/trade dress or any other mark/logo/label/packaging/trade dress deceptively similar/identical to Plaintiff's trade mark/label/logo trade mark/label/logo /INDIA GATE, INDIA GATE CLASSIC Label/ packaging/trade dress or any other Label/packaging that may be colourable imitation of INDIA GATE CLASSIC Label/packaging including packaging, labels, printing materials, printing cylinders, jar/bottles, moulds, blocks, dyes, articles etc.. This issue is accordingly decided.
Issue no.6 :- Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree KRBL LIMITED vs MOI COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Page no. 26 of 30 CS Comm 2304/22 of rendition of account or in the alternative a decree of damages, if so, to what amount? OPP.
31. It is submitted by learned counsel for plaintiff that defendant has not come forward for leading the evidence of producing its record. He further submits that rendering of accounts of the transactions related to the counterfeit goods may not be fruitful and learned counsel for plaintiff has submitted that instead of giving directions for rendition of account, court should pass decree for damages.
32. Such submissions are in consonance with the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed on 21.03.2022 in Imaging Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Green Accessories through its proprietor and Anr. passed in CS (Comm.) 564/2020, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 235, wherein Hon'ble High Court held as under:-
12. Since the Defendants have not appeared and rendered any accounts of profits, the said relief as sought in paragraph 30(d) is rejected. Insofar as the relief of delivering up as sought in paragraph 30(e) is concerned, the Plaintiff or a representative thereof, is permitted to visit the premises of Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.6, upon which the Defendant Nos.1 and 6 shall handover all the seized products to the representatives of the Plaintiff for the purpose of destruction.
13. Insofar as the relief of damages as sought in paragraph 30(f) is concerned, it is clear to this Court that KRBL LIMITED vs MOI COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Page no. 27 of 30 CS Comm 2304/22 the Defendants have blatantly infringed the trademark and logos as also the packaging of the Plaintiff's products. Considering the quantum of counterfeit products which was seized from Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.6, the suit is decreed against the Defendant No.1 for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs, and against the Defendant No. 6 for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs. Since no products were found in the premises of Defendant No.3, no monetary damages are being imposed on the said Defendant. Let the said amounts be paid to the Plaintiff within two weeks.
33. Plaintiff has valued its suit for rendition of accounts at Rs.3,05,000/-, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs.3,05,000/-
seems to be reasonable and the plaintiff is entitled for decree of damages for Rs.3,05,000.
Relief
34. In view of aforesaid discussion of court, suit of the plaintiff is decreed for permanent injunction against the defendant thereby restraining the defendant by itself and through its directors/ proprietors/ partners, associates, assigns, heirs, successors, distributors, dealers, wholesalers, retailers, stockiest, agents and all others acting for and on its behalf from using, soliciting, manufacturing, selling, offering for sale and advertising KRBL LIMITED vs MOI COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Page no. 28 of 30 CS Comm 2304/22 in any manner including on the internet, websites or e- commerce platform, directly or indirectly dealing in rice or any other food articles/ingredients under the impugned mark/logo/label/packaging/trade dress or any other mark/logo/label/packaging/trade dress that is identical/deceptively similar to Plaintiff's trade mark/label/logo trade mark/label/logo /INDIA GATE and INDIA GATE CLASSIC Label/ packaging/trade dress or any other logo/ label that is identical and/or deceptively similar to Plaintiff's logo INDIA GATE and INDIA GATE CLASSIC Label/ packaging/trade dress amounting to:
i. copyright infringement of Plaintiff's logo INDIA GATE and INDIA GATE CLASSIC Label ii. passing off of the Defendant's goods for those of the Plaintiff's including by way of dilution; and iii. injurious association and acts of unfair competition.
35. Suit of plaintiff is further decreed for mandatory injunction and defendant is directed to destroy and not to use all or any of the infringing/violative goods whether finished or unfinished bearing impugned KRBL LIMITED vs MOI COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Page no. 29 of 30 CS Comm 2304/22 mark/logo/label/packaging/trade dress or any other mark/logo/label/packaging/trade dress deceptively similar/identical to Plaintiff's trade mark/label/logo trade mark/label/logo /INDIA GATE, INDIA GATE CLASSIC Label/ packaging/trade dress or any other Label/packaging that may be colourable imitation of INDIA GATE CLASSIC Label/packaging including packaging, labels, printing materials, printing cylinders, jar/bottles, moulds, blocks, dyes, articles etc..
36. Suit of plaintiff is further decreed for damages against the defendant for Rs.3,05,000/-.
37. Cost of suit is also awarded in favour of plaintiff.
38. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
39. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on the 03rd day of December, 2025.
(Ajay Pandey) District Judge (Commercial Court-10) Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
KRBL LIMITED vs MOI COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Page no. 30 of 30 CS Comm 2304/22 Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.12.03 15:52:50 +0530