Facts Of The Case:
In the present case of 'Khadi & Village Industries Commission v/s Raman Gupta &
.', the plaintiff is a registered proprietor of the word and logo mark
"khadi" with a charkha logo. This commission is a statutory body, established by
parliament under Khadi and Village Industries Commission Act of 1956. The
plaintiff's suit was against the defendant's brand "KHADI BY HERITAGE" thar sold
deceptively similar products on similar domain name and with a similar trademark
to jeopardise plaintiff's well-established goodwill.
The plaintiff operated its business via the Company's registered websites- 'www.kviconline.gov.in',
'www.Khadiindia.gov.in, 'https://www.kviconline.gov.in/khadimask/' and the
latest, 'www.ekhadiindia.com' selling over 50,000 products with different
varieties ranging from food products, grocery products, oils, to diyas,
cosmetics, etc. Moreover, they also manufactured and sold various medical
products, such as hand wash, hand sanitizers, etc.
On the other hand, the defendant also used the websites under the domain name of
'https://khadi-by-heritage.business.site/', among others for the operation of
his business. It was asserted by the plaintiff that their company was well
established and a well-known brand and the use of its mark in such a deceptive
way with such similar trading style is likely to harm its goodwill, create a
confusion in the minds of its consumers as well as is against the statutory and
common law rights.
The filed a suit seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of
trademark, passing off, rendition of accounts, damages, delivery up, etc by the
Khadi & Village Industries Commission V. Raman Gupta & Ors. [Cs (Comm)
133/2022 & I.A.3299/2022]
Date Of Decision: 26th July 2022
- Whether the use of trade name 'KHADI BY HERITAGE' amounts to
infringement of plaintiff's trademark.
- Whether the plaintiff can seek permanent injunction restraining the sale
and promotion by defendant of such mark.
- Whether an ex-parte decree can be issued against the defendant.
On the date of first hearing the court was of the prima facie opinion that the
use of the word "KHADI" which is a registered mark of the plaintiff especially
for the sale of medical products is not only the infringement of trademark of
the plaintiff but also is a concerning matter in regards to the interests of
Further the use of the mark along with the use of charkha logo is likely to
deceive the consumers and could lead them to believe that the defendant's
company is associated or sponsored by the plaintiff's company which will
ultimately lead people to question the product quality provided by the
Even after repeated summons and intimations to the defendants, none appeared.
The court heard the counsels for plaintiffs and perused the record for further
orders. The court was of the opinion that the mark and the charkha logo was
being misused by the plaintiff which was illegal and in complete violation of
Plaintiff's rights in the same.
The court also established that such use of the registered mark of plaintiff by
the defendant will cause an irreparable damage to the plaintiff's business as it
evokes in the minds of consumers that the defendant's brand is affiliated to the
plaintiff which exercises exclusive ownership over the mark "KHADI".
The court also cited the following judgments while determining the issue of ex-parte
order, Disney Enterprises Inc. & Anr. v. Balraj Muttneja &Ors. [CS (OS)
3466/2012 decided on 20th February, 2014], and S. Oliver Bernd Freier GMBH &
CO. KG v. Jaikara Apparels and Ors. [210 (2014) DLT 381], United Coffee House
v. Raghav Kalra and Ors. [2013 (55) PTC 414 (Del)], and stated that when
there is sufficient proof in front of the court to support plaintiff's claim, an
ex-parte decree can be issued without putting the ex-parte evidence on record.
The Court referred to the Khadi and Village Industries Commission Act, 1956 and
Order VI Rule 17 r/w Order I Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of CPC.
- Regarding infringement court held that use of the registered mark of
plaintiff by the defendant will cause an irreparable damage to the
plaintiff's business as it evokes in the minds of consumers that the
defendant's brand is affiliated to the plaintiff which exercises exclusive
ownership over the mark "KHADI".
- A decree of permanent injunction was issued in favour of the plaintiff
restraining the defendant from the use of the registered mark, logo and use
of such mark and log for the purposes of any kind of sale or passing off.
The domain names used by the defendants were directed to be transferred to
plaintiff. Further the court also required the registrar of trademarks to
reject all of the defendant's marks.
- Since the mark was misused by the defendant with a deliberate, conscious
and malafide intention causing irreparable damages to the plaintiff, relief
was provided to the plaintiff in form of damages of Rs10 Lakhs and costs of
The High Court of Delhi has placed particular focus on the 'medicinal' element
of the items in question in the current case. As compared to other items, it has
been noticed that courts tend to apply a harsher standard for determining
whether a product violates intellectual property rights. It should be
highlighted that the case gave proper respect to quality control and other
elements that contribute to the plaintiff's product's dependability. Finally,
the plaintiff's brand's global reach has received enough attention.
- CS (OS) 3466/2012
- MANU / DE / 1247 / 2014
- 2013 (55) PTC 414 (Del); MANU/DE/2714/2022