Delhi High Court Lifts Injunction On 'Cheetal' Rice Trademark, Rules No Infringement Of 'Double Deer' Mark

A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, by a judgment dated January 9, 2026, allowed an appeal filed by Bhole Nath Foods Ltd. against an order of the Commercial Court at Tis Hazari, which had granted interim protection to Kirorimal Kashiram pending disposal of its trademark infringement suit.

The Bench observed, “The mere fact that both the marks contain images of deer as part of the marks would not render them visually similar. A bare glance at the two images does not convey any impression of likelihood of confusion between them even when viewed from the perspective of a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection.”

Kirorimal Kashiram stated that it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of rice and claimed long-standing rights in the “DOUBLE DEER” word and device marks, tracing its use back to 1966. The company relied on multiple trademark registrations and asserted that its labels also qualify as original artistic works under the Copyright Act, 1957. It claimed that continuous use over several decades had resulted in significant goodwill and reputation across India.

The dispute arose in March 2023, when Kirorimal Kashiram alleged that Bhole Nath Foods was manufacturing and selling rice under the “CHEETAL” word and device marks. It argued that “cheetal” is the vernacular name for a species of deer and that the rival mark, which also featured deer imagery, was deceptively similar to its “DOUBLE DEER” label, leading to consumer confusion.

On this basis, Kirorimal Kashiram approached the Commercial Court seeking a permanent injunction against the use of the “CHEETAL” marks. Along with the suit, it sought interim relief, which was granted in November 2024, restraining Bhole Nath Foods from using the disputed marks during the pendency of the proceedings.

Challenging this order before the High Court, Bhole Nath Foods argued that it is the registered proprietor of the “CHEETAL” word mark since 2005 and that an injunction for infringement could not be granted against a registered trademark. It also submitted that there was no deceptive similarity between the rival marks and that the suit was barred by delay, acquiescence and lack of bona fides.

Allowing the appeal, the Division Bench reiterated the settled legal position that no infringement action lies against the proprietor of a registered trademark, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai.

“The definition of infringement, as contained in sub-sections (1) to (4) of Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act envisages the infringer being a person who is not the registered proprietor of the allegedly infringing mark or the permissive user thereof. Registered marks, therefore, cannot alleged to be infringing in nature,” the Court said.

On the issue of passing off, the Bench found that the Commercial Court had erroneously applied infringement standards. It held that the mere fact that both labels contain deer imagery could not, by itself, establish deceptive similarity, particularly when the “CHEETAL” mark is prominently displayed and the overall visual appearance of the competing labels is materially different.

Rejecting the application of the doctrine of idea infringement to the facts of the case, the Court referred to the ruling of Madan Lal Purshottam Dass Foods Pvt. Ltd v. B.L. Agro Industries Ltd and explained that, “For a claim of idea infringement to sustain, therefore, the plaintiff would have to establish that the idea reflected in its asserted mark was unique, and that the defendant had adopted the same idea as the basis for its mark.”

It held that Bhole Nath Foods' “CHEETAL” mark could not be said to have borrowed any such idea from Kirorimal Kashiram's mark.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the Commercial Court's 2024 order, clarifying that its observations were confined to the interim stage of the proceedings.

Case Title: Bhole Nath Foods Ltd v. Kirorimal Kashiram Marketing and Agencies Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 40

Case Number.: FAO (COMM) 79/2025

For Appellant: Advocates Junaid Alam, Nishant Mahtta and S. Nithin

For Respondent: Advocates Rishi Bansal and Shruti Manchanda