Beyond the Label: Delhi High Court Clarifies Trademark Use in the Digital Era

Posted on July 4, 2025 | By Sarangi Legal Team

A recent judgment from the Delhi High Court is making waves in Indian trademark law. The case—KRB Enterprises & Ors. v. M/s KRBL Limited—revolves around the well-known rice brand KRBL Limited, owner of the iconic "India Gate" label, and a firm called KRB Enterprises. The decision offers critical insight into what constitutes "use" of a trademark, especially in the context of branding, digital presence, and corporate identity.

Background of the Dispute

KRBL Limited alleged that KRB Enterprises’ use of the mark “KRB” was deceptively similar to their registered trademark “KRBL.” Despite KRBL primarily marketing its rice under the “India Gate” brand, the company maintained that “KRBL” continues to function as a source identifier through its corporate name, online presence, and advertising.

On the other hand, KRB Enterprises argued that their mark reflected the initials of their family members and was adopted in good faith. They contended that since KRBL was not visibly used on rice packaging, it couldn’t be considered an active trademark in the marketplace. They also pointed to delays in KRBL’s enforcement actions as a sign of abandonment.

Key Legal Takeaways

On May 26, 2025, the Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur ruled in favor of KRBL Limited. Here are the essential legal principles emerging from this judgment:

• Trademark Use Goes Beyond Packaging:The Court emphasized that a trademark doesn't need to appear physically on goods to qualify as being "used" under Indian law. Use through advertising, online platforms, and even corporate branding can suffice if it creates an association between the mark and the goods.
• Similarity Must Be Assessed HolisticallyDespite the minor difference in characters, the Court found "KRB" and "KRBL" to be deceptively similar, especially given that both marks relate to identical goods (rice). The risk of consumer confusion was considered high.
• Enforcement Delays Don’t Necessarily Undermine RightsWhile KRB Enterprises highlighted KRBL’s past delay and prior withdrawal of a trademark application, the Court determined that KRBL had consistently opposed conflicting applications and took action upon discovering actual use of the mark.

Implications for Trademark Owners and Businesses

This judgment has far-reaching consequences:

• Expanded Scope of Protection: Businesses can now rely on non-physical use (like digital marketing and brand associations) to establish trademark use and enforce rights.
• Stronger Digital Trademark Rights: As e-commerce and online branding dominate, this decision ensures such forms of use are not left in a legal grey area.
• Clarified Infringement Standards: Competitors cannot bypass infringement claims by omitting the trademark from physical packaging—any misleading association may suffice.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision in KRB Enterprises v. KRBL Limited reinforces a modern, expansive view of trademark use. For rights holders, this is a welcome clarification: your mark is protected not only when it’s printed on the product but also when it builds consumer association through digital or corporate presence. For businesses, the message is clear—carefully assess how closely your branding resembles existing trademarks, even if your mark isn’t used in the exact same way.