'India Gate' Trademark Dispute: Delhi High Court Allows KRBL To Add Infringement Claim Over 'Royal Gate'

The Delhi High Court has allowed KRBL Limited to amend its 2016 suit against J.R. Rice India Pvt. Ltd., allowing it to add a claim of trademark infringement over the use of “ROYAL GATE” with a device of “INDIA GATE."

The suit originally sought relief on the ground of passing off.

Justice Jyoti Singh allowed the amendment on August 12, 2026, while directing KRBL to pay Rs. 50,000 to the Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Trust within two weeks. The cost was imposed as the court found that no plausible explanation had been given for the delay in seeking the amendment.

KRBL had originally sought a permanent injunction restraining J.R. Rice India from using the “ROYAL GATE” mark or label with a device of “INDIA GATE." It also sought to restrain the use of any identical or deceptively similar mark or label in relation to the impugned goods. Since “INDIA GATE” was not registered in KRBL's favour when the suit was filed, its claim was based entirely on passing off.

During the pendency of the suit, KRBL acquired rights in the “INDIA GATE” trademark from Ram Pratap through an assignment deed dated August 6, 2019. The mark was subsequently registered in KRBL's favour, with the registration certificate issued on August 12, 2019.

“INDIA GATE” was also included in the list of well-known trademarks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. KRBL then sought to bring these developments on record and add grounds alleging trademark infringement, along with consequential changes to the reliefs claimed.

The court held that there was no legal impediment to allowing the amendment since “INDIA GATE” was already the subject matter of the original suit. KRBL's original claim had been restricted to passing off because the mark was not registered when the suit was filed.

“There is no legal impediment in allowing the application for amendment since the mark INDIA GATE is the subject matter of the original suit and the claim of the Plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit was restricted to passing off since the said mark was not registered,” the court observed.

The court further observed that after registration of the mark, KRBL was otherwise entitled to file a suit for infringement. Allowing the amendment would therefore be in the interests of justice and would avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The court also noted that the proposed amendment did not change the nature and character of the case. An infringement claim is essentially based on similar and identical facts as a passing-off claim, it observed.

While allowing the amendment, the court took note of the delay in seeking it. Since no plausible explanation was forthcoming, the amended plaint was taken on record subject to KRBL paying Rs. 50,000 to the Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Trust within two weeks.

The existing interim order in the suit will continue until the next hearing, which is scheduled for January 20, 2027.