Court finds Respondent's '10X Shakti' mark deceptively similar to Appellant's 'Shakti Bhog,' revives injunction against GRM Foodkraft
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to Kumar Foods Industries by staying the use of the trademark '10X Shakti' by GRM Foodkraft Private Limited. The division bench, comprising Justices Tejas Karia and Madhu Jain, found the respondent's mark to be deceptively similar to the appellant's long-established 'Shakti Bhog' trademark.
The case, FAO (COMM) 166 of 2026, revolved around the alleged infringement of the 'Shakti Bhog' trademark, which Kumar Foods has been using since 1975. The appellant argued that GRM Foodkraft's use of the '10X Shakti' mark could cause confusion among consumers due to its phonetic and structural similarity to 'Shakti Bhog.' The court concurred, stating that the competing marks satisfy the test of triple identity—similarity in marks, identical goods, and common trade channels and consumer base.
The court's decision came after the learned District Judge (Commercial Court-02), North, Rohini Courts, Delhi, dismissed Kumar Foods' application for an injunction in a previous order dated 06.06.2026. The High Court's ruling effectively stays this impugned order, reviving the earlier interim relief granted to Kumar Foods.
The court emphasized that while no party can claim exclusive rights over the descriptive component 'Shakti,' the overall impression of the mark is crucial. It noted that the dominant feature of 'Shakti Bhog' was replicated in the '10X Shakti' mark, leading to potential consumer confusion. Furthermore, the court found no justification for GRM Foodkraft's adoption of the 'Shakti' component, as its other products are marketed under different trademarks.
The bench ordered that the reply to the present application be filed within three weeks, with a rejoinder, if any, to follow before the next hearing scheduled for July 22, 2026.
Bottom line:-
Trade Mark Law - Protection of registered trade marks - Prior user and registered proprietor of a mark entitled to protection against deceptively similar marks causing likelihood of confusion.
Statutory provision(s): Trade Marks Act, 1999 Sections 17, 28, 29
Kumar Foods Industries v. GRM Foodkraft Private Limited, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2930275
