Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment and decree dated 24.07.2017 in O.S. No.7/2012 passed by the Principal District Judge, Ballari. The plaintiff, a registered partnership firm, claimed to have been using the mark ‘KITCHEN KING’ with a pictorial device of a ‘KING’ for its rice products since 1st January 1990. It obtained trademark registration on 10.11.2000, which was renewed and valid until 10.11.2020, and also held a copyright registration for the artistic work of the device. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, also a rice trader, was deceptively using the identical ‘Kitchen King’ mark on its gunny and plastic bags, thereby misleading customers and causing confusion. The defendant denied infringement, contending that its registered trademark was ‘EVERYDAY’ and that it had been using ‘Kitchen King’ as a name for 30 years. The defendant also claimed that its packaging used a different pictorial device (a ‘BUTLER’) and a different colour scheme, and that the suit was not maintainable at Ballari. The trial court, after examining witnesses and documentary evidence (Ex.P1–P27, Ex.D1–D4), found in favour of the plaintiff. It decreed the suit, permanently restraining the defendant from using the mark ‘Kitchen King’ and the artistic work/logo ‘KING’ or any deceptively similar mark. The defendant was ordered to surrender all infringing materials, pay nominal damages of Rs.1,00,000, and furnish statements of accounts of profits earned using the mark. The defendant challenged this decree in the High Court under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The oral judgment, as recorded up to para 10, recounts the pleadings, the issues framed by the trial court, and the decree; however, the text of the judgment is truncated and does not include any reasoning or the final order of the High Court on the appeal. Consequently, the appellate decision is not ascertainable from the available record.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was correct in granting permanent injunction and damages for alleged trademark infringement and passing off in relation to the ‘KITCHEN KING’ brand of rice.
Law Points
- trademark infringement
- passing off
- deceptive similarity
- prior use
- acquired distinctiveness
- permanent injunction
- damages
- registered trademark rights
- copyright in artistic work
- burden of proof
Case Details
2025 LawText (KAR) (02) 54
Regular First Appeal No. 100359 of 2017 (IPR)
V. Shivaraj Hiremath, Ranjita Alagawadi, Y. Malathi Reddy, Y. Lakshmikant Reddy
M/s. Shankar Rice Industries, Represented by Sri. T.K. Nagaraj Shetty
M/s. Sri. Balaji Rice Mill, Represented by its Partner, Sri. J.K. Govindanarayana Sarda
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for permanent injunction based on allegations of trademark infringement and passing off in relation to the use of the mark ‘KITCHEN KING’ with a device of a ‘KING’ for rice products.
Remedy Sought
Plaintiff sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the trademark ‘KITCHEN KING’ and the artistic work/logo ‘KING’, surrender of infringing materials, damages of Rs.1,00,000, and a statement of accounts of profits earned by the defendant using the mark.
Filing Reason
The plaintiff claimed to have been using the trademark and brand since 1990, with registrations granted in 2000, and alleged that the defendant had been deceptively using the identical ‘Kitchen King’ mark on its rice bags, leading to customer confusion and loss of business.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Principal District Judge, Ballari) by judgment and decree dated 24.07.2017 in O.S. No.7/2012 decreed the suit with costs, granting permanent injunction, ordering surrender of infringing materials, awarding nominal damages of Rs.1,00,000, and directing the defendant to furnish statements of accounts. The defendant appealed this decree to the High Court.
Issues
Whether the plaintiff is a registered trademark holder of the rice products under the name ‘KITCHEN KING’ with device of a KING under Copyright Act, 1957?
Whether the defendant is conducting business by user of the word ‘KITCHEN KING’ and by display of the pictorial device of BUTLER and has used the same in the nature of brand name, heading, labeling?
Whether the brand name being used by the defendant is deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff and thereby infringed plaintiff’s rights?
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages to the tune of Rs.1,00,000?
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought?
What decree or order?
Submissions/Arguments
Plaintiff contended that it was the prior user of the ‘KITCHEN KING’ brand since 1990, had registrations under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and Copyright Act, and that the defendant’s use of an identical mark was deceptive, causing confusion among customers and infringing upon its exclusive rights.
Defendant argued that it had its own registered trademark ‘EVERYDAY’, had been using ‘Kitchen King’ only as a name for 30 years, that its packaging used a different pictorial device (BUTLER) and colour scheme, and that the suit was not maintainable in Ballari; it denied any malafide intent.
Judgment Excerpts
the word “KITCHEN KING” has become synonymous with plaintiff firm and its business is thriving
defendant has copied the trademark of plaintiff with a view to enrich themselves by creating confusion in the mind of customers
The Trial Court has decreed the suit, thereby granted decree of permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed for
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed O.S. No.7/2012 before the Principal District Judge, Ballari, alleging trademark infringement and passing off. After a full trial with evidence from both sides, the trial court decreed the suit on 24.07.2017, granting permanent injunction, damages, and other reliefs. The defendant preferred Regular First Appeal No. 100359/2017 before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 and Section 151 CPC. The appeal came up for orders on 14.02.2025, and the court delivered an oral judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96, Order 41 Rule 1, Section 151
- Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958:
- Copyright Act, 1957:
