Court Halts Use of '10X Shakti' Trademark Amid Legal Battle

A Delhi court has issued an injunction against GRM Food Craft Pvt Ltd, banning the use of '10X Shakti' on wheat flour packaging. The court sided with Kumar Food Industries, original owners of 'Shakti Bhog', to prevent financial and reputational damage. Both companies operate in the same industry.

In a significant legal development, a Delhi court has barred GRM Food Craft Private Limited from using the trademark '10X Shakti' on its wheat flour packaging. This decision comes after the court found the company had been using 'Shakti 10X' without legal authorization.

The recent ruling by Rohini Court highlighted that Kumar Food Industries Ltd had a prima facie case, with the balance of convenience in its favor. The court remarked that failing to grant an ex-parte interim injunction could lead to irreparable financial losses and damage to the plaintiff's goodwill.

District Judge Umed Singh Grewal, presiding over the case, noted that the documents submitted confirmed that Kumar Food Industries was the original owner of the 'Shakti Bhog' trademark since 1975. The court observed that GRM Food Craft's use of the trademark '10X Shakti Bhog', prominently displaying 'Shakti', could mislead consumers regarding the product's origin.

The court's decision was granted under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC, restricting GRM Food Craft and its representatives from using the contested trademark until further notice. The ruling aims to halt consumer confusion and protect the plaintiff's market position.

Back in 1991, Kewal Krishan Kumar, Kumar Food Industries' founder, had registered the 'Shakti Bhog' trademark and its variations across multiple classes under the Trade Marks Act. Continuous use and licensing of the trademark has been maintained, establishing Kumar as the rightful owner. The court ruled in favor of Kumar's significant investment in brand reputation over the years.

The arguments revealed that GRM commenced selling wheat flour under '10X Shakti' 2-3 years ago, despite a rejected trademark registration application by the Trademark Registrar in March 2024. This court order protects consumers from potentially substandard goods marketed by the defendant using a deceptively similar brand name.

(With inputs from agencies.)