Delhi High Court Restores Interim Relief For Kumar Foods, Finds “10X SHAKTI” Similar To SHAKTI BHOG

The Delhi High Court on 19 June restored interim protection in favour of Kumar Foods Industries in its dispute against GRM Foodkraft Private Limited and held that the latter's use of the mark “10X SHAKTI” for wheat flour is prima facie deceptively similar to the former's registered mark “SHAKTI BHOG”.

A Vacation Bench of Justices Tejas Karia and Madhu Jain allowed Kumar Foods's appeal against the order of the District Judge, Rohini dated 6 June 2026, which had vacated an ex-parte injunction earlier granted in January 2025. The judges observed:

“The use of the prefix '10X' with 'SHAKTI' does not, at this stage, sufficiently dispel the likelihood of confusion, particularly as the parties deal in identical goods.”

Kumar Foods Industries, a permitted user of Kewal Krishan Kumar's registered “SHAKTI BHOG” marks, sued GRM Foodkraft Private Limited alleging infringement through use of “10X SHAKTI” on wheat flour and atta products.

The Trial Court initially granted an ex-parte injunction in January 2025 but later vacated it, holding that the prefix “10X” sufficiently distinguished the competing marks and that no likelihood of confusion arose.

Kumar Foods challenged this finding, arguing that “SHAKTI” forms the dominant feature of the impugned mark, with “10X” appearing in a smaller font. It also relied on the Trade Marks Registry's refusal in March 2024 of GRM Foodkraft's application for registration of “10X SHAKTI,” citing prior registration of the appellant's marks.

GRM Foodkraft argued that “SHAKTI” is descriptive and publici juris, and that no party can claim exclusivity over it.

The High Court rejected this contention and held that the competing marks are prima facie deceptively similar. It found that the prefix “10X” does not dispel the likelihood of confusion, particularly since the goods are identical.

It noted that GRM Foodkraft failed to justify its adoption of “SHAKTI” for wheat flour, especially when it markets other products under different marks, and held that the adoption of the impugned mark is prima facie dishonest.

Applying the test of triple identity: similar marks, identical goods, and common trade channels and consumers, the Bench held that Kumar Foods is entitled to interim protection as prior adopter, prior user, and registered proprietor.

The matter is listed before the Roster Bench on 22 July 2026.