The court established that the use of a similar mark that may cause consumer confusion constitutes trademark infringement and passing off, affirming the Plaintiff's exclusive rights over its registered trademarks.

ORDER

I.A. No. 4557/2021(for exemption)

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

I.A. No. 4556/2021 (u/O 11 R 1(4) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 r/w Section 151 CPC for filing additional documents)

3. This is an application seeking leave to file additional documents under the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015.

4. The Plaintiffs, if they wish to file additional documents at a later stage, shall do so strictly as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act. The application is disposed of in the above terms.

CS(COMM) 146/2021

5. The plaint is registered as suit.

6. Upon filing of process fee, issue summons to the Defendant by all permissible modes. Summons shall state that the written statement shall be filed by the Defendant within 30 days from the date of receipt of summons. Along with the written statement, the Defendant shall also file an affidavit of admission/denial of the documents of the Plaintiffs, without which the written statement shall not be taken on record.

7. Liberty is given to the Plaintiffs to file a replication within 15 days of the receipt of the written statement. Along with the replication, if any, filed by the Plaintiffs, an affidavit of admission/denial of documents of the Defendant, be filed by the Plaintiff, without which the replication shall not be taken on record. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same shall be sought and given within the timelines.

8. List before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) for marking of exhibits on 31st May, 2021. It is made clear that any party unjustifiably denying documents would be liable to be burdened with costs.

9. List before Court for framing of issues thereafter.

I.A. No. 4555/2021 (u/O XXXIX Rule 1&2)

10. The case of the plaintiff is that it is a statutory body established by an Act of Parliament, being the Khadi and Village Industries Commission Act, 1956. It is the registered proprietor of the word mark `KHADI', the device marks and , and which are the subject matter trademarks for the present suit [hereinafter referred to as "the KHADI trademarks"]. Apart from common law rights, the Plaintiff is also the registered proprietor of the KHADI trademarks in several classes in India.

11. Plaintiff asserts that since its formation in the year 1957, it has been carrying on the work related to implementation of programmes for the development of khadi and other village industries in the rural areas in-coordination with other agencies. The Plaintiff adopted the trademark `KHADI' on 25th September, 1956 and the same has been in use continuously till date. By virtue of its adoption more than sixty years ago and extensive use thereof, the trademark `Khadi' is the sole and exclusive intellectual property of the Plaintiff. The Khadi trademarks not only act as source identifiers but also as symbols of purity and authenticity. It is the most essential and prominent feature of Plaintiff's trademark and its tradename/corporate names and the plaintiff has been using the same and label `Khadi' on a wide range of products.

12. In 2013, Plaintiff brought into force the `Khadi' Mark Regulations, 2013 which apply to persons who are engaged in production, sale or trading of `Khadi' and Khadi products and who are desirous of producing, selling or trading of `Khadi' and Khadi products and to certify Khadi Institutions. The said Regulations provide guidelines for using khadi trademarks such as affixing khadi mark, tag or label or both as decided by the Commission.

13. Ms Shwetasree Majumdar, counsel for t