• Advertise
  • Membership
  • Sign inSUBSCRIBE
Legal Era
X
Sign in
  • Home
  • News
    +
    • From the Courts
    • Policy & Law
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • High Court (India)
    • TAX Updates
    • MARKET WATCH
    • Deal Street
    • Global Insights
    • IBC Cases
    • Hires & Moves
    • IP News
    • Competition Verdict
    • Global Articles
    • Global Deals
  • Articles
    +
    • ABOUT THE LAW
    • AWARDS & ACCOLADES
    • Aerospace
    • Agriculture
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution
    • Banking and Finance
    • Bankruptcy
    • Book Review
    • Bribery & Corruption
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Competition Law
    • Conference Reports
    • Consumer Products
    • Contract
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Law
    • Covid-19
    • Cryptocurrency
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Protection
    • Defence
    • Digital Economy
    • E-commerce
    • Employment Law
    • Energy and Natural Resources
    • Entertainment and Sports Law
    • Environmental Law
    • FDI
    • Food and Beverage
    • Health Care
    • IBC Diaries
    • Insurance Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Law
    • Labour Laws
    • Litigation
    • Litigation Funding
    • Manufacturing
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • NFTs
    • Privacy
    • Private Equity
    • Project Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Risk and Compliance
    • Technology Media and Telecom
    • Tributes
    • Zoom In
    • Take On Board
    • In Focus
    • Law & Policy and Regulation
    • IP & Tech Era
    • Viewpoint
    • Arbitration & Mediation
    • Tax
    • Student Corner
    • ESG
    • Gaming
    • Inclusion & Diversity
  • Law Firms
    +
    • Global Law Firm
    • Asia Law Firm
    • India Law Firm
  • In-House
  • Rankings
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Events
  • News
    • From the Courts
    • Policy & Law
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • High Court (India)
    • TAX Updates
    • MARKET WATCH
    • Deal Street
    • Global Insights
    • IBC Cases
    • Hires & Moves
    • IP News
    • Competition Verdict
    • Global Articles
    • Global Deals
  • Articles
    • ABOUT THE LAW
    • AWARDS & ACCOLADES
    • Aerospace
    • Agriculture
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution
    • Banking and Finance
    • Bankruptcy
    • Book Review
    • Bribery & Corruption
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Competition Law
    • Conference Reports
    • Consumer Products
    • Contract
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Law
    • Covid-19
    • Cryptocurrency
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Protection
    • Defence
    • Digital Economy
    • E-commerce
    • Employment Law
    • Energy and Natural Resources
    • Entertainment and Sports Law
    • Environmental Law
    • FDI
    • Food and Beverage
    • Health Care
    • IBC Diaries
    • Insurance Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Law
    • Labour Laws
    • Litigation
    • Litigation Funding
    • Manufacturing
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • NFTs
    • Privacy
    • Private Equity
    • Project Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Risk and Compliance
    • Technology Media and Telecom
    • Tributes
    • Zoom In
    • Take On Board
    • In Focus
    • Law & Policy and Regulation
    • IP & Tech Era
    • Viewpoint
    • Arbitration & Mediation
    • Tax
    • Student Corner
    • ESG
    • Gaming
    • Inclusion & Diversity
  • Law Firms
    • Global Law Firm
    • Asia Law Firm
    • India Law Firm
  • In-House
  • Rankings
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Events

Top Stories

  • Freshfields
    Finance partner Carol Van der Vorst
  • Time
    Time limit of 45 days under SARFAESI is
  • Justices-Uday-Umesh-Lalit-&-Aniruddha-Bose-&-Sudhanshu-Dhulia
    Supreme Court reserves judgement on
  • Justice-Yashwant-Varma
    Delhi High Court rules on not ousting
  • Deborah-Enix-Ross
    Deborah Enix-Ross sworn in as president
  • Dentons
    Dentons assists IMC Industrial Group in
  • Bombay-High-Court
    Bombay High Court rejects recovery
  • Pallavi-Bedi
    Erstwhile Partner at Luthra and Luthra -
  • WhatsApp
    NCLAT rules in favour of WhatsAPP, says
  • Jaewoo-Lee
    Jaewoo Lee appointed as the Managing
HomeNewsFrom the Courts
2 Aug 2022 5:15 AM GMT

Delhi High Court grants permanent injunction against KHADI BY HERITAGE in a Trademark infringement suit

By Legal Era
Justice-Pratibha-M-Singh


Delhi High Court grants permanent injunction against KHADI BY HERITAGE in a Trademark infringement suit

Justice Pratibha M Singh awarded damages of Rs. 10 lakhs and costs of Rs. 2 lakhs in favour of Khadi & Village Industries Commission.

In a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by KHADI, the Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction against KHADI BY HERITAGE, engaged in selling PPE kits, hand sanitizers and fireballs on the grounds that there was a "reasonable expectation" that the latter misused the former's trademark to promote its products.

The Court observed that "Such misuse of the Plaintiff's mark 'KHADI' cannot be condoned by the Court, inasmuch as the mark and the name, as also, the logo, have been identically used by the Defendants. The use by the Defendants is deliberate, conscious and mala fide in nature."

Khadi & Village Industries Commission, a statutory body, had filed the suit claiming to be the registered proprietor of the mark 'KHADI' along with the 'Charkha Logos'. It also hosts the website under the domain name 'www.kviconline.gov.in' which was registered since 1st July, 2010.

The plaintiff contended that the Defendants were using the mark "KHADI BY HERITAGE" and the "Charkha Logos" in various forms. It was stated that on the website operated by defendants, they used 'Charkha Logos' and the trademark 'KHADI BY HERITAGE', and claimed to be the "manufacturers of Organic, Natural & Eco-Friendly Cosmetic and allied Products under the name and brand of KHADI BY HERITAGE".

"This Court is of the opinion that the Plaintiff, being the registered owner of the trademark 'KHADI' and its variants, since the year 2014 with the user claim of 1956 in several classes in Hindi and English, is entitled to protection of the said mark. Even the 'Charkha Logo', depicted hereinabove, was adopted by the Plaintiff in the year 1956 and has been used extensively on the products and services provided by the Plaintiff. Further, the mark 'KHADI' has been protected repeatedly by this Court, as well as, in a number of INDRP and UDRP proceedings," the Court said.

The Court was of the view that the sale of PPE kits, masks, hand sanitizers, fireballs, etc. by the Defendants, under the mark 'KHADI', 'KHADI INDIA' along with the 'Charkha Logo' would be a complete violation of the Plaintiff's rights in the same.

"Such use would also result in causing irreparable confusion to the consumers, who may believe the Defendants' products to be genuine. In fact, in the opinion of this Court, the use of the mark and name 'KHADI BY HERITAGE' seeks to evoke a connection with or affiliation to the Plaintiff, which is the exclusive owner and user of the mark 'KHADI'," it added.

"Accordingly, a decree of permanent injunction is granted, in terms of the reliefs as sought in paragraph 51 (a) and (b) of the Plaint, restraining the Defendants, Defendants' agent, representatives and distributors from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale any goods or services under the impugned mark and logo 'KHADI BY HERITAGE', the KBH logo, as also, any other marks/logos identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's mark 'KHADI' and the 'Charkha logo' in respect of any goods and services, without a license or consent from the Plaintiff," the Court ordered.

Click to download here Full PDF

TAGS:
  • Delhi High Court 
  • KHADI 
  • Trademark Infringement 
Next Story
Similar Posts
See More
TAGS:
  • Delhi High Court 
  • KHADI 
  • Trademark Infringement 
Trending Now
Is a Uniform Succession Law Necessary in India?

Is a Uniform Succession Law Necessary in India?

NCLT says advance paid by real-estate developer to property owner qualifies as Operational Debt under IBC

NCLT says advance paid by real-estate developer to property

Can an Arbitral Award Be Stayed Upon Surety and Personal Undertaking

Can an Arbitral Award Be Stayed Upon Surety and Personal

High Courts power under Article 226/227 to interfere with arbitral procedure must be exercised in exceptional cases: Supreme Court

High Court's power under Article 226/227 to interfere with

Recommended Articles
Can an Arbitral Award Be Stayed Upon Surety and Personal Undertaking

Can an Arbitral Award Be Stayed Upon Surety and Personal

Stamping Out Illegal Streaming Technology – Recent Amendments to The Copyright Act

Stamping Out Illegal Streaming Technology – Recent

The Quincecare Duty of Care Story Continues

The Quincecare Duty of Care Story Continues

Recent Developments and Trends in Diversity & Inclusion in Japan

Recent Developments and Trends in Diversity & Inclusion in

  • News
  • From the Courts
  • Supreme Court (India)
  • High Court (India)
  • Global Insights
  • Deal Street
  • Hires & Moves
  • Refund & Cancellation Policy
  • Articles
  • Zoom In
  • Take On Board
  • In Focus
  • Law & Policy
  • IP & Tech Era
  • Viewpoint
  • Arbitration & Mediation
  • Tax
  • Student Corner
  • Interviews
  • Law Firms
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Membership
  • Reader's Feedback
  • Cartoons
  • Subscribe
Follow Us
Subscribe Newsletter
  • 2022© All rights reserved Legal Era Media Group
  • Who We Are
  • Careers
  • Advertise with Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
Powered by  Hocalwire
X
X