In India, many legal battles have stretched on for years — but few have captured as much attention as the one that questions brand identity and national pride. One such case involves the iconic Bharat Gate vs India Gate Trademark case brand — a name recognized in almost every Indian household and one of the country’s most trusted rice brands. Now, the brand finds itself at the center of a high-profile trademark dispute, which has recently escalated in court. Keep reading to explore this ongoing legal battle, the latest developments in intellectual property Rights (IPR) law, and what it reveals about the power of perception in India’s marketplace.
Why did the Delhi High Court Rule in Favor of India Gate in Bharat Gate vs. India Gate Trademark case?
To really understand the India Gate trademark case, we need to go back to where it all started. India Gate, a well-known basmati rice brand owned by KRBL Limited, is one of India’s most trusted names in the food industry, a company with a long history and a strong market identity. The trouble began when KRBL found that another rice manufacturer had launched a product under the name “Bharat Gate”, using packaging with similar colors and even an image similar to the India Gate monument. Under trademark law, that kind of imitation — where one brand tries to ride on another’s goodwill — is clearly not allowed. After this, in 2020, KRBL filed a trademark infringement suit before the Commercial Court in Delhi.
After reviewing the case, the court approved temporary injunction in favor of KRBL, stopping the other party from using the “Bharat Gate” mark on their rice packaging. The court observed that there was merit in KRBL’s argument, noting that the two marks appeared deceptively similar and could easily mislead consumers.
But the case got twisted when, in 2024, after further hearings, the same Commercial Court vacated the injunction, holding that “Bharat Gate” and “India Gate” were not confusingly similar. The judge noted that there were visible differences in packaging, trade channels, and pricing, and ruled that consumers were unlikely to be misled. This decision allowed the rival company to continue using the “Bharat Gate” mark.
Read Also: Japan Patent Office Denies Nintendo Patent Application in Ongoing Palworld Dispute
Why Did the Kerala High Court Refuse to Hear the India Gate Trademark Rectification Case?
But, after the Delhi High Court gave the verdict for the KRBL’s injunction in early 2025, the legal battle took an unexpected turn in Kerala. A group of petitioners, reportedly connected to the defendants, filed a rectification petition before the Kerala High Court, asking to cancel or remove the “India Gate” trademark from the Trade Marks Register. Their argument was that the “India Gate” mark should not have been given registration in the first place and that it lacked uniqueness, especially when it uses the name of a national monument. They claimed the registration violated provisions under the Trade Marks Act and therefore deserved to be rectified.
However, when the matter came before the Kerala High Court, the judges first examined the issue of jurisdiction. The court found that the India Gate trademark was registered with the Delhi Trade Marks Registry, which automatically placed jurisdiction with the Delhi High Court, not Kerala. In its ruling, the Kerala High Court clarified that only the High Court within the territorial jurisdiction of the registry where the trademark is registered has the authority to hear rectification or cancellation petitions. Since the mark was registered in Delhi, the petition filed in Kerala was deemed incompetent and subsequently dismissed.
This decision not only closed the Kerala chapter of the dispute but also underscored a vital procedural principle in IP litigation — choosing the correct forum is just as important as the merits of the case itself. The ruling reinforced legal discipline in India’s trademark framework, ensuring that similar cases follow the right jurisdictional path.
Conclusion
The Bharat Gate vs. India Gate Trademark case is more than just a fight over a name — it’s a reminder of how deeply brand identity, consumer trust, and legal IP protection are connected.
From the Delhi Commercial Court to the Kerala High Court, the rulings reaffirm that distinctive trademarks deserve strong protection, especially when they carry years of reputation and goodwill. This is yet again one of the most interesting cases in India. Keep reading and learn more about the latest IP news in India and all over the world.
Read Also: WIPO and TURKPATENT Launch IP Management Clinics to Help SMEs Turn Innovation into Growth