RAJDHANI Case: Delhi HC Restrains Similar Marks

RAJDHANI Case: Delhi HC Restrains Similar Marks. In a significant development in Indian trademark jurisprudence, the Delhi High Court in Victoria Foods Private Limited v. Ashad Trading Co. and Others granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of Victoria Foods, the proprietor of the well-known “RAJDHANI” brand. The Court restrained the defendants from using the marks “TAJDHANI” and “CAPITAL” in relation to food products such as seviyan (vermicelli), holding that these marks were deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered trademark.
The case goes beyond a typical trademark dispute. It deals not only with deceptive similarity but also with translation-based infringement, passing off, and copyright in packaging (trade dress). The Court’s reasoning reflects a modern approach to brand protection, especially in markets where visual identity and linguistic meaning both influence consumer perception.
What makes the case particularly noteworthy is the Court’s treatment of the mark “CAPITAL.” Instead of limiting its analysis to phonetic or visual similarity, the Court accepted that “Capital” is the English equivalent of “Rajdhani.” On this basis, it held that even a translated version of a trademark can lead to confusion and may therefore be restrained. This expands the traditional understanding of deceptive similarity under Indian law.
Background of the Dispute
The plaintiff, Victoria Foods Private Limited, is a well-established entity engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling a wide variety of food products. The mark “RAJDHANI” was adopted as early as 1966, and since then, it has been used continuously in relation to products such as atta, maida, sooji, dalia, rice, pulses, papad, poha, popcorn, and seviyan.
Over the decades, the brand has built significant goodwill and reputation in the Indian market. The plaintiff emphasized before the Court that its products are widely recognised and that the mark “RAJDHANI” has become synonymous with quality in the food sector. The Court took note of the plaintiff’s substantial commercial presence, including its high turnover figures and extensive advertising expenditure, which were relied upon to establish the brand’s strong market position.
The plaintiff also held multiple trademark registrations for the word mark “RAJDHANI” as well as its associated labels and packaging. In addition, it claimed protection under the Copyright Act, 1957 for the artistic elements of its packaging, including the layout, colour scheme, stylisation, and overall trade dress.
This combination of statutory trademark rights and copyright protection formed the foundation of the plaintiff’s case. 
Discovery of the Infringement
The dispute came to light when the plaintiff conducted a market survey in February 2026. During this survey, it discovered that the defendants were selling seviyan products under the marks “TAJDHANI” and “CAPITAL.”
The plaintiff alleged that these products were being sold in packaging that closely resembled its own. The visual presentation—including colour combinations, font styles, and overall layout—was claimed to be strikingly similar to the plaintiff’s trade dress.
According to the plaintiff, the defendants had deliberately chosen these marks and packaging styles to mislead consumers and take advantage of the established goodwill of the “RAJDHANI” brand. The plaintiff further argued that the defendants’ conduct amounted to unfair competition, as it attempted to divert customers by creating an impression of association with the plaintiff. 
Plaintiff’s Claims
The plaintiff’s case was based on three primary legal grounds:
Trademark Infringement
The plaintiff argued that the use of “TAJDHANI” was deceptively similar to “RAJDHANI.” Both marks shared a similar structure and phonetic pattern, which could easily confuse an average consumer with imperfect recollection.
Additionally, the use of the mark “CAPITAL” was challenged on the ground that it was the English translation of “Rajdhani.” The plaintiff argued that such translation-based usage could still lead to confusion, especially in a multilingual market like India.
Passing Off
The plaintiff also invoked the common law remedy of passing off, arguing that the defendants were attempting to benefit from the goodwill and reputation associated with the “RAJDHANI” brand.
By adopting similar marks and packaging, the defendants were allegedly creating a false impression that their products were connected with or endorsed by the plaintiff.
Copyright Infringement
The plaintiff further claimed that the defendants had copied the artistic work and packaging design of its products. Since the plaintiff owned copyright in these elements, such imitation amounted to infringement under the Copyright Act, 1957.
Relevant Legal Provisions Involved

Trade Marks Act, 1999
 The case was primarily based on the plaintiff’s rights as the registered proprietor of the mark “RAJDHANI.” The use of similar marks by the defendants was challenged as trademark infringement.

Passing Off (Common Law Remedy) The plaintiff relied on the doctrine of passing off to protect its goodwill and prevent misrepresentation by the defendants.

Copyright Act, 1957 The plaintiff claimed protection over the artistic work, label design, and trade dress of its packaging.

Section 17(c), Copyright Act, 1957
 This provision was relied upon to establish ownership of the artistic work used in the packaging.

Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, CPC, 1908
 The plaintiff sought an interim injunction under these provisions, which allow courts to grant temporary relief based on prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm.

Section 151, CPC, 1908 The Court exercised its inherent powers while granting relief.

Section 12A, Commercial Courts Act, 2015
 The plaintiff was granted exemption from pre-institution mediation due to urgency in the matter.

Key Legal Issue: Translation-Based Trademark Infringement
A central issue in the case was whether the use of a translated version of a trademark could amount to infringement.
The Court accepted the plaintiff’s argument that “Rajdhani” translates to “Capital.” It held that even though the marks were not phonetically identical, the conceptual similarity was sufficient to create confusion.
To support this reasoning, the Court relied on the precedent of Bhatia Plastics v. Peacock Industry, where the use of “Peacock” was held to infringe the mark “Mayur.” This case established that translation of a trademark into another language does not avoid infringement if the meaning remains the same and confusion is likely.
This principle is particularly relevant in India, where consumers often interact with multiple languages, and brand recognition can extend across linguistic boundaries.
Court’s Analysis
After examining the record and hearing the plaintiff, the Delhi High Court found that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case.
The Court observed that:

The mark “TAJDHANI” was visually and phonetically similar to “RAJDHANI.”

The mark “CAPITAL” was conceptually similar, as it represented a translation of the plaintiff’s mark.

The defendants had copied the trade dress and packaging, further increasing the likelihood of confusion.

The Court also noted that the defendants’ actions appeared to be intentional, aimed at taking advantage of the plaintiff’s reputation.
Applying the standard principles for grant of interim injunction, the Court held that:

The balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if the defendants were allowed to continue their activities.

Relief Granted by the Court
The Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from:

Using the marks “TAJDHANI” and “CAPITAL” or any deceptively similar marks.

Manufacturing, selling, or advertising products under such marks.

Using packaging or trade dress that infringed the plaintiff’s copyright.

This immediate relief was necessary to prevent further damage to the plaintiff’s brand and to avoid consumer confusion in the market.
Significance of the Judgment
The judgment is important for several reasons, particularly in strengthening the scope of trademark protection in India and adapting traditional principles to modern market realities. It reflects the Court’s intent to protect not just the literal form of a trademark, but also its commercial identity, meaning, and market impact.
Recognition of Translation-Based Infringement
One of the most significant aspects of the decision is the recognition that translation of a trademark can amount to infringement. The Court clarified that trademark protection is not limited to identical or phonetically similar marks. Even where a mark is expressed in a different language, if it conveys the same meaning and creates a similar commercial impression, it can still mislead consumers. This principle is particularly relevant in a multilingual country like India, where consumers often understand and associate brands across different languages. By acknowledging conceptual similarity through translation, the Court has expanded the scope of protection available to trademark owners and closed a potential loophole that infringers could otherwise exploit.
Strong Protection of Trade Dress
The judgment also reinforces the importance of trade dress protection, which includes packaging, colour combinations, layout, font style, and overall visual presentation of a product. In consumer markets, especially for everyday goods like food items, purchasing decisions are often influenced more by visual recognition than by careful reading of brand names. The Court recognised that copying such visual elements can create confusion just as effectively as copying the trademark itself. By granting protection to the overall packaging and artistic features, the decision strengthens the legal position of brand owners against imitation that goes beyond just the word mark.
Emphasis on Consumer Perception 
Another key takeaway is the Court’s emphasis on the perspective of the average consumer with imperfect recollection. Instead of conducting a purely technical or side-by-side comparison of the marks, the Court focused on how a typical buyer in the marketplace would perceive them. This approach aligns with established trademark principles and ensures that the law remains grounded in real-world consumer behaviour. It recognises that consumers may not remember exact spellings or linguistic distinctions but are influenced by overall impression, sound, meaning, and packaging.
Deterrence Against Unfair Competition 
Finally, the judgment serves as a strong deterrent against unfair competition and dishonest adoption of marks. By restraining the defendants at an early stage, the Court sent a clear message that attempts to ride on the goodwill and reputation of established brands will not be tolerated. The decision highlights that businesses must adopt original and distinctive branding strategies rather than relying on imitation or association with existing brands to gain market advantage. This not only protects brand owners but also promotes fairness and integrity in the marketplace.
Overall, the judgment contributes to the evolving jurisprudence on deceptive similarity, conceptual similarity, and trade dress protection, making it a valuable precedent for future trademark disputes in India.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s ruling in Victoria Foods Private Limited v. Ashad Trading Co. and Others reflects a progressive and practical approach to trademark law. By recognising translation-based infringement and protecting trade dress, the Court has strengthened the legal framework for brand protection in India.
The decision underscores that trademark law is not limited to identical marks. It extends to similar words, translated equivalents, and copied packaging that can mislead consumers.
For businesses, the case highlights the importance of building and protecting distinctive brand identity, while also serving as a warning against adopting marks that may encroach upon the rights of established players.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q1. What was the dispute in the RAJDHANI trademark case? 
Ans. The dispute involved the use of the marks “TAJDHANI” and “CAPITAL” for food products, which the plaintiff claimed were deceptively similar to its registered trademark “RAJDHANI.”
Q2. What did the Delhi High Court decide in this case? 
Ans. The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using the marks “TAJDHANI” and “CAPITAL,” as well as similar packaging, due to trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright infringement.
Q3. Why was “TAJDHANI” considered deceptively similar to “RAJDHANI”? 
Ans. The Court found that both marks were phonetically and structurally similar, which could confuse an average consumer, especially in the context of everyday food products.
Q4. Can a translated word like “CAPITAL” infringe a trademark? 
Ans. Yes. The Court held that “CAPITAL” is the English translation of “RAJDHANI,” and such conceptual similarity can lead to confusion, making it a case of infringement.
Q5. What is translation-based trademark infringement? 
Ans. It refers to a situation where a trademark is used in another language but conveys the same meaning and commercial impression, potentially misleading consumers.
Q6. What is trade dress and why was it important in this case? 
Ans. Trade dress includes packaging, colour schemes, and overall product presentation. The Court found that copying these elements can mislead consumers and amount to infringement.
Q7. What is passing off in trademark law? 
Ans. Passing off occurs when a business misrepresents its goods as those of another, thereby exploiting the goodwill of the original brand and causing confusion among consumers.
Q8. What legal provisions were involved in this case? 
Ans. The case involved provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, Copyright Act, 1957, and Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, along with the doctrine of passing off.
Q9. Why did the Court grant an interim injunction? 
Ans. The Court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience was in its favour, and that it would suffer irreparable harm without immediate relief.
Q10. What is the significance of this judgment? 
Ans. The judgment clarifies that trademark protection extends to similar, translated, and visually imitated marks, strengthening brand protection in India.

In a significant development in Indian trademark jurisprudence, the Delhi High Court in Victoria Foods Private Limited v. Ashad Trading Co. and Others granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of Victoria Foods, the proprietor of the well-known “RAJDHANI” brand. The Court restrained the defendants from using the marks “TAJDHANI” and “CAPITAL” in relation to food products such as seviyan (vermicelli), holding that these marks were deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered trademark.

The case goes beyond a typical trademark dispute. It deals not only with deceptive similarity but also with translation-based infringement, passing off, and copyright in packaging (trade dress). The Court’s reasoning reflects a modern approach to brand protection, especially in markets where visual identity and linguistic meaning both influence consumer perception.

What makes the case particularly noteworthy is the Court’s treatment of the mark “CAPITAL.” Instead of limiting its analysis to phonetic or visual similarity, the Court accepted that “Capital” is the English equivalent of “Rajdhani.” On this basis, it held that even a translated version of a trademark can lead to confusion and may therefore be restrained. This expands the traditional understanding of deceptive similarity under Indian law.

Background of the Dispute

The plaintiff, Victoria Foods Private Limited, is a well-established entity engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling a wide variety of food products. The mark “RAJDHANI” was adopted as early as 1966, and since then, it has been used continuously in relation to products such as atta, maida, sooji, dalia, rice, pulses, papad, poha, popcorn, and seviyan.

Over the decades, the brand has built significant goodwill and reputation in the Indian market. The plaintiff emphasized before the Court that its products are widely recognised and that the mark “RAJDHANI” has become synonymous with quality in the food sector. The Court took note of the plaintiff’s substantial commercial presence, including its high turnover figures and extensive advertising expenditure, which were relied upon to establish the brand’s strong market position.

The plaintiff also held multiple trademark registrations for the word mark “RAJDHANI” as well as its associated labels and packaging. In addition, it claimed protection under the Copyright Act, 1957 for the artistic elements of its packaging, including the layout, colour scheme, stylisation, and overall trade dress.

This combination of statutory trademark rights and copyright protection formed the foundation of the plaintiff’s case.

Discovery of the Infringement

The dispute came to light when the plaintiff conducted a market survey in February 2026. During this survey, it discovered that the defendants were selling seviyan products under the marks “TAJDHANI” and “CAPITAL.”

The plaintiff alleged that these products were being sold in packaging that closely resembled its own. The visual presentation—including colour combinations, font styles, and overall layout—was claimed to be strikingly similar to the plaintiff’s trade dress.

According to the plaintiff, the defendants had deliberately chosen these marks and packaging styles to mislead consumers and take advantage of the established goodwill of the “RAJDHANI” brand. The plaintiff further argued that the defendants’ conduct amounted to unfair competition, as it attempted to divert customers by creating an impression of association with the plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s Claims

The plaintiff’s case was based on three primary legal grounds:

Trademark Infringement

The plaintiff argued that the use of “TAJDHANI” was deceptively similar to “RAJDHANI.” Both marks shared a similar structure and phonetic pattern, which could easily confuse an average consumer with imperfect recollection.

Additionally, the use of the mark “CAPITAL” was challenged on the ground that it was the English translation of “Rajdhani.” The plaintiff argued that such translation-based usage could still lead to confusion, especially in a multilingual market like India.

Passing Off

The plaintiff also invoked the common law remedy of passing off, arguing that the defendants were attempting to benefit from the goodwill and reputation associated with the “RAJDHANI” brand.

By adopting similar marks and packaging, the defendants were allegedly creating a false impression that their products were connected with or endorsed by the plaintiff.

Copyright Infringement

The plaintiff further claimed that the defendants had copied the artistic work and packaging design of its products. Since the plaintiff owned copyright in these elements, such imitation amounted to infringement under the Copyright Act, 1957.

Relevant Legal Provisions Involved

Trade Marks Act, 1999

The case was primarily based on the plaintiff’s rights as the registered proprietor of the mark “RAJDHANI.” The use of similar marks by the defendants was challenged as trademark infringement.
Passing Off (Common Law Remedy)
The plaintiff relied on the doctrine of passing off to protect its goodwill and prevent misrepresentation by the defendants.
Copyright Act, 1957
The plaintiff claimed protection over the artistic work, label design, and trade dress of its packaging.
Section 17(c), Copyright Act, 1957

This provision was relied upon to establish ownership of the artistic work used in the packaging.
Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, CPC, 1908

The plaintiff sought an interim injunction under these provisions, which allow courts to grant temporary relief based on prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm.
Section 151, CPC, 1908
The Court exercised its inherent powers while granting relief.
Section 12A, Commercial Courts Act, 2015

The plaintiff was granted exemption from pre-institution mediation due to urgency in the matter.

Key Legal Issue: Translation-Based Trademark Infringement

A central issue in the case was whether the use of a translated version of a trademark could amount to infringement.

The Court accepted the plaintiff’s argument that “Rajdhani” translates to “Capital.” It held that even though the marks were not phonetically identical, the conceptual similarity was sufficient to create confusion.

To support this reasoning, the Court relied on the precedent of Bhatia Plastics v. Peacock Industry, where the use of “Peacock” was held to infringe the mark “Mayur.” This case established that translation of a trademark into another language does not avoid infringement if the meaning remains the same and confusion is likely.

This principle is particularly relevant in India, where consumers often interact with multiple languages, and brand recognition can extend across linguistic boundaries.

Court’s Analysis

After examining the record and hearing the plaintiff, the Delhi High Court found that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case.

The Court observed that:

The mark “TAJDHANI” was visually and phonetically similar to “RAJDHANI.”
The mark “CAPITAL” was conceptually similar, as it represented a translation of the plaintiff’s mark.
The defendants had copied the trade dress and packaging, further increasing the likelihood of confusion.

The Court also noted that the defendants’ actions appeared to be intentional, aimed at taking advantage of the plaintiff’s reputation.

Applying the standard principles for grant of interim injunction, the Court held that:

The balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if the defendants were allowed to continue their activities.

Relief Granted by the Court

The Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from:

Using the marks “TAJDHANI” and “CAPITAL” or any deceptively similar marks.
Manufacturing, selling, or advertising products under such marks.
Using packaging or trade dress that infringed the plaintiff’s copyright.

This immediate relief was necessary to prevent further damage to the plaintiff’s brand and to avoid consumer confusion in the market.

Significance of the Judgment

The judgment is important for several reasons, particularly in strengthening the scope of trademark protection in India and adapting traditional principles to modern market realities. It reflects the Court’s intent to protect not just the literal form of a trademark, but also its commercial identity, meaning, and market impact.

Recognition of Translation-Based Infringement

One of the most significant aspects of the decision is the recognition that translation of a trademark can amount to infringement. The Court clarified that trademark protection is not limited to identical or phonetically similar marks. Even where a mark is expressed in a different language, if it conveys the same meaning and creates a similar commercial impression, it can still mislead consumers. This principle is particularly relevant in a multilingual country like India, where consumers often understand and associate brands across different languages. By acknowledging conceptual similarity through translation, the Court has expanded the scope of protection available to trademark owners and closed a potential loophole that infringers could otherwise exploit.

Strong Protection of Trade Dress

The judgment also reinforces the importance of trade dress protection, which includes packaging, colour combinations, layout, font style, and overall visual presentation of a product. In consumer markets, especially for everyday goods like food items, purchasing decisions are often influenced more by visual recognition than by careful reading of brand names. The Court recognised that copying such visual elements can create confusion just as effectively as copying the trademark itself. By granting protection to the overall packaging and artistic features, the decision strengthens the legal position of brand owners against imitation that goes beyond just the word mark.

Emphasis on Consumer Perception

Another key takeaway is the Court’s emphasis on the perspective of the average consumer with imperfect recollection. Instead of conducting a purely technical or side-by-side comparison of the marks, the Court focused on how a typical buyer in the marketplace would perceive them. This approach aligns with established trademark principles and ensures that the law remains grounded in real-world consumer behaviour. It recognises that consumers may not remember exact spellings or linguistic distinctions but are influenced by overall impression, sound, meaning, and packaging.

Deterrence Against Unfair Competition

Finally, the judgment serves as a strong deterrent against unfair competition and dishonest adoption of marks. By restraining the defendants at an early stage, the Court sent a clear message that attempts to ride on the goodwill and reputation of established brands will not be tolerated. The decision highlights that businesses must adopt original and distinctive branding strategies rather than relying on imitation or association with existing brands to gain market advantage. This not only protects brand owners but also promotes fairness and integrity in the marketplace.

Overall, the judgment contributes to the evolving jurisprudence on deceptive similarity, conceptual similarity, and trade dress protection, making it a valuable precedent for future trademark disputes in India.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s ruling in Victoria Foods Private Limited v. Ashad Trading Co. and Others reflects a progressive and practical approach to trademark law. By recognising translation-based infringement and protecting trade dress, the Court has strengthened the legal framework for brand protection in India.

The decision underscores that trademark law is not limited to identical marks. It extends to similar words, translated equivalents, and copied packaging that can mislead consumers.

For businesses, the case highlights the importance of building and protecting distinctive brand identity, while also serving as a warning against adopting marks that may encroach upon the rights of established players.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1. What was the dispute in the RAJDHANI trademark case?

Ans. The dispute involved the use of the marks “TAJDHANI” and “CAPITAL” for food products, which the plaintiff claimed were deceptively similar to its registered trademark “RAJDHANI.”

Q2. What did the Delhi High Court decide in this case?

Ans. The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using the marks “TAJDHANI” and “CAPITAL,” as well as similar packaging, due to trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright infringement.

Q3. Why was “TAJDHANI” considered deceptively similar to “RAJDHANI”?

Ans. The Court found that both marks were phonetically and structurally similar, which could confuse an average consumer, especially in the context of everyday food products.

Q4. Can a translated word like “CAPITAL” infringe a trademark?

Ans. Yes. The Court held that “CAPITAL” is the English translation of “RAJDHANI,” and such conceptual similarity can lead to confusion, making it a case of infringement.

Q5. What is translation-based trademark infringement?

Ans. It refers to a situation where a trademark is used in another language but conveys the same meaning and commercial impression, potentially misleading consumers.

Q6. What is trade dress and why was it important in this case?

Ans. Trade dress includes packaging, colour schemes, and overall product presentation. The Court found that copying these elements can mislead consumers and amount to infringement.

Q7. What is passing off in trademark law?

Ans. Passing off occurs when a business misrepresents its goods as those of another, thereby exploiting the goodwill of the original brand and causing confusion among consumers.

Q8. What legal provisions were involved in this case?

Ans. The case involved provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, Copyright Act, 1957, and Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, along with the doctrine of passing off.

Q9. Why did the Court grant an interim injunction?

Ans. The Court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience was in its favour, and that it would suffer irreparable harm without immediate relief.

Q10. What is the significance of this judgment?

Ans. The judgment clarifies that trademark protection extends to similar, translated, and visually imitated marks, strengthening brand protection in India.