A Lesson in Branding: Delhi High Court Slams ‘Slavish’ Copying of Rice Packaging

In a significant move to reinforce intellectual property protection in the commercial sector, the Delhi High Court has issued an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Knam Foods Pvt. Ltd., restraining them from using the trademark and trade dress associated with the "AL-BUSTAN" brand of rice. The order, passed by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, highlights the Court's intolerance toward blatant copycat branding that threatens the market reputation of established players.

The Conflict: A Case of Imitation

The Plaintiff, Amir Chand Jagdish Kumar Exports Ltd., a major exporter in the rice industry, approached the Court alleging that the Defendants—Knam Foods Pvt. Ltd. and its associates—had replicated not just their brand name, but the entirety of their unique trade dress.

The core of the dispute involves the "AL-BUSTAN" brand, which the Plaintiff has been using since 2007. The Plaintiff’s packaging—distinguished by a vibrant blue and yellow motif—was reportedly copied in its entirety. Perhaps most tellingly, the Plaintiff argued that the Defendants had "mindlessly" replicated even the mobile numbers and specific literary works found on the Plaintiff’s original bags.

Business Betrayal: The Distributor Angle

The case takes an interesting turn with the involvement of the Defendants' distributor, who previously maintained a professional association with the Plaintiff. The Court noted that the prior business relationship between the parties lends credence to the argument that the Defendants' imitation was not a coincidence, but a calculated effort to usurp the Plaintiff’s hard-earned goodwill. Despite receiving a cease-and-desist notice in late 2024, the Defendants not only continued the infringing activity but also attempted to register the "AL-BUSTAN" mark as their own, an act the Court viewed as an "afterthought and a counter-blast."

Key Observations

The Court did not mince words in its assessment of the evidence presented:

• On the nature of the copying: "Upon a bare perusal of the packaging of the rival products, it prima facie appears that the Defendant has slavishly copied the essential features of the Plaintiff’s packaging including its mark/label and over all get up/trade dress."
• On the deceptive tactics: "The Defendants have not only copied the Plaintiff’s mark ‘AL-BUSTAN’ but have also mindlessly printed the same mobile number on the packaging."
• On the potential for confusion: "The Defendant’s use of the identical mark ‘AL-BUSTAN’ combined with a deceptively similar packaging is clearly intended to confuse the unwary consumer to believe that the impugned product originates from the Plaintiff."
• On the necessity of the injunction: "The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss in case the Defendants are not restrained from using the Plaintiff’s mark/label/trade dress."

The Road Ahead

The High Court’s order effectively halts the Defendants from manufacturing, exporting, or marketing products under the infringing "AL-BUSTAN" label. By granting this injunction, the Court has signaled that "generic" claims made by infringers do not provide a veil for copying the visual and linguistic components of an established brand’s identity.

With the next hearing scheduled for April 14, 2026, this case serves as a stern reminder to commercial entities that prior user rights and established trade dress are fortified by law, and that attempts to ride on another company’s success will face swift judicial scrutiny. Legal professionals will be watching closely to see how the final trial addresses the Defendants' attempt to file a trademark application post-litigation notice.