Facts Of The Case:
In the present case of 'Khadi & Village Industries Commission v/s Raman Gupta & ors.', 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 defendant.

Khadi & Village Industries Commission V. Raman Gupta & Ors. [Cs (Comm) 133/2022 & I.A.3299/2022]
Date Of Decision: 26th July 2022

Issues:

1. Whether the use of trade name 'KHADI BY HERITAGE' amounts to infringement of plaintiff's trademark.
2. Whether the plaintiff can seek permanent injunction restraining the sale and promotion by defendant of such mark.
3. Whether an ex-parte decree can be issued against the defendant.

Observation
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 general public.

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 plaintiffs.

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][1], and S. Oliver Bernd Freier GMBH & CO. KG v. Jaikara Apparels and Ors. [210 (2014) DLT 381][2], United Coffee House v. Raghav Kalra and Ors. [2013 (55) PTC 414 (Del)][3], 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.

Held
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.

1. 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".
    
2. 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.
    
3. 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 Rs2 Lakhs.

Conclusion
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.

References:

1. bananaip.com/ip-news-center
2. images.assettype.com/barandbench
3. jainandpartners.com/news
4. iprlawindia.org
5. spicyip.com

End-Notes:

1. CS (OS) 3466/2012
2. MANU / DE / 1247 / 2014
3. 2013 (55) PTC 414 (Del); MANU/DE/2714/2022