* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 25.02.2025 Pronounced on: 26.05.2025 + FAO (COMM) 69/2024, CM APPL. 23568/2024 and CM APPL. 23569/2024 KRB ENTERPRISES & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv.

with Mr. Sumit K. Batra, Mr. Manish Khurana, Mr. Ajay Sabharwaland Ms. Priyanka Jindal, Advs.

versus M/S. KRBL LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv.

with Mr. Aniruddha Bakhru, Mr. Shravan Kumar Bansal, Mr. Rishi Bansal, Ms. Kanupriya Sabharwal, Ms. Ayushi Arora and Mr. Ranjit Sinha, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR

J U D G M E N T

1. The present Appeal has been filed under Section 13 (1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (in short, „CC Act‟), challenging the Order dated 21.02.2024 („Impugned Order‟) passed by the Court of the learned District Judge (Commercial Courts) (Digital-4), South District, Saket Courts, Delhi in CS(COMM) No.430/2022, titled M/s KRBL Limited v. KRB Enterprises & Ors., whereby the learned District Judge has been pleased to pass an ad-interim order of injunction against the appellants in terms of paragraph 4(a) of the application filed by the Respondent herein under Order XXXIX Rule

1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, „CPC‟).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. The Appellant No.1/M/s KRB Enterprises is a partnership firm of Mr. Basant Kumar Jindal, Mr. Krishan Jindal, and Mr. Sanjay Jindal. The Appellant No.2/M/s KRB Rice Mills Private Limited is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. The Appellant No.3 is Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jindal, the proprietor of M/s. Jindal Traders. The Appellants herein are engaged inter alia in the business of manufacturing, trading, and marketing goods such as rice, coffee, sugar etc., which forms part of Class 30 for the purpose of trademark registration under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟).

3. The present Appeal revolves around an alleged infringement of the trademark of the Respondent „KRBL LIMITED ALONG WITH DEVICE PADDY FORMING THE SHAPE OF DIAMOND‟ „ ‟ (hereinafter referred to as the „Respondent‟s Mark‟), on account of usage of allegedly deceptively similar mark „KRB‟ (hereinafter referred to as the „Appellant‟s Mark/

Impugned Mark‟) by the Appellant.

Case of the Respondent:

4. The respondent has filed the above Suit claiming therein that it is engaged in the business of manufacturing, processing, marketing, selling and exporting of food products such as rice, quinoa, chia seeds, flax seeds, etc. It was incorporated as M/s Khushi Ram Bihari Lal Ltd. in the year 1993 and later, in the year 2000 its name was changed to KRBL Ltd. The respondent claimed that it has been using the trade name KRBL Ltd. and the Respondent‟s Mark since the year

2000.

5. The respondent, in the Suit, claims that the word „KRBL‟ and devise of paddy are both essential features of the Respondent‟s Mark. It claimed that the said trademark is also registered under the Act vide registration nos.1352767 and 3664458.

6. The Respondent claimed that the artistic feature involved in its trademark is an original artistic work under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, and has been registered bearing No. A-68191/2005.

7. The Respondent further claimed in the Suit that „KRBL‟ also forms essential part of its other group companies namely KRBL Food Ltd., KRBL Foundation, KRBL Infrastructure Ltd., and KRBL Food Ltd.

8. It is claimed by the Respondent that the said trademark is also displayed prominently on its website, namely www.krblrice.com, and forms dominant part of its domain name. It is claimed by the Respondent that since the year 2000, it has been continuously and openly using the said trademark as a proprietor thereof in relation to its above-mentioned goods, businesses, and services, and has built a valuable goodwill and reputation therein.

9. The Respondent gave the following figures of its sale qua the Respondent‟s Mark in the Plaint:

10. The Respondent further c