What’s Khadi and What’s Not: Indian Handloom Remains Entangled in Legal Brawls

The KVIC had gone to court in December 2019 following the National Khadi Designers Awards 2019 and the Miss India Khadi event at Goa, in which the two defendants were reported to have used the word mark 'Khadi' as well as the 'Charkha' (hand-spinning wheel) logo. The Commission had initially sent legal notices to the two organisations following which the latter removed the mark and logo from their banners, posters and hoardings.

The KVIC then came to know that the two organisations had allegedly infringed on the khadi and charkha trademarks through other means. In its pleas to the court, the KVIC said that the websites www.kdci.org and www.missindiakhadi.in were using the 'khadi' trademarks and marks deceptively similar thereto (the KVIC ones, without authorisation or permission from the plaintiff).

Moreover, the abbreviation KDCI was structurally and phonetically similar to KVIC, and also created an impression of association between KDCI and the plaintiff, in view of the similarity between KDCI and the acronym of the Fashion Design Council of India, FDCI, which is the authorised partner of the plaintiff in the Lakme Fashion week. The defendants were also alleged to be using the marks on their social media platforms.

But that was not all. The KVIC complained that on their website www.paridhaanam.com, for which a hyperlink was provided on the defendants‘ websites www.kdci.org and www.missindiakhadi, the two organisations were selling jewellery and fabric apart from apparel. The KVIC quoted an extract:

With dynamic advancements, Khadi fabric is now available in multiple variations. With handwork ranging from Kantha to Block print, this fabric captivates beauty with its subtle weaves. The styles that can be crafted from Khadi are not limited to a Nehru jacket anymore. You can now choose from a wide range of shirts, flared pants and dresses.

Modern machinery is taking over the traditional methods of manual crafting. The fabric now also comes with innovative cuts and styles.

The KVIC contended that the admission, in the concluding part of the extract, to the effect that the fabric sold across the Paridhaanam website was also being made using modern machinery indicated that they were selling non-khadi material across the website, even though khadi fabric is exclusively handwoven, and no machinery can be employed in its making.

The defendants were also running a programme titled 'Designer Employment Generation Programme', under which designers and design institutes were being provided a 'khadi certification'. The KVIC said that granting of khadi certifications was the exclusive prerogative of the Commission and that the two organisations, by holding themselves out as issuing such certificates, were misrepresenting to the public.

The last few years have seen the KVIC taking the legal route on khadi. There have been a series of orders, but none that have been far-reaching enough to stop private entities from using the khadi word either directly, or using it to promote their businesses or brands.

• Prior Use of Khadi: In December 2022, the Bombay High Court had restrained the Mumbai Khadi Village Industries Association (MHVIA) from using the trademark ‘Khadi’ or a deceptively similar variant as part of its business name or to sell any product under that mark and logo with a charkha. The MHVIA used to run the Mumbai Khadi Gramodyog Bhavan, a popular outlet. The KVIC had pleaded that under the law the Commission would issue a certificate to others to sell its trademarked khadi products and such certificate had been issued to the Association too but it was recently suspended and later withdrawn as well. However, the MHVIA emporium was still selling and thus infringing its well-known trademark. The court did not buy the MHVIA's argument that its existence since 1946 and hence its use of the word ‘khadi’ being prior in time, was protected under Section 34 (protection for a prior user) of the Trademarks Act.
• Khadi in a Domain Name: In May 2021, the National Internet Exchange of India Domain Dispute Policy (INDRP) Arbitration Tribunal had rejected the contention of a private entity that 'khadi' was a generic word, and held that the use of the brand name by any other was likely to create confusion and deception with the goods/services of the KVIC. In this case, the KVIC had challenged a domain name www.khadi.in being run by a Delhi-based individual, Jitendra Jain, and his associates. The tribunal had held that the domain name was registered in "bad faith." Jain was ordered to transfer the domain name to the KVIC. The Arbitrator, Pankaj Garg, contended that 'Khadi' was not a generic name to be used by private individuals or firms and permanently restrained Jain and his agents from using the brand name khadi. The KVIC was held to be the legitimate owner of the trademark “Khadi”/”Khadi India” under Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act 1999.
• Medical Items under Khadi Name: The Delhi High Court in July last year granted permanent injunction against Khadi By Heritage, from selling of PPE kits, hand sanitizers and fireballs in a trademark infringement suit filed by the KVIC. The single-judge bench of Justice Prathiba Singh held that the trademark 'Khadi' along with the 'Charkha' logo were well-known trademarks, and that the use of the trademark ‘Khadi’ in this manner, especially in relation to medical products, raised enormous concerns in respect of the quality of these products apart from constituting violations of the KVIC’s rights. The court directed the domain name registrar to transfer the domain names to the KVIC within a week. Justice Singh also directed the Indian Trademark Registry to suo motu reject all trademark applications filed by Khadi by Heritage, in light of this order. The cort ordered damages of Rs 12 lakh and costs of Rs 2 lakh to the KVIC.
• The Truant Retail Giant: The most high-profile case, however, dates back much earlier. In February 2018, the KVIC sent a legal notice to Fabindia, the chain of ethnicwear retail outlets, demanding Rs 525 crore in damages for "illegally" using its 'charkha' trademark and selling apparels with the 'Khadi' tag. Fabindia initially summarily dismissed the KVIC claim as "baseless." The matter hit the courts in June. After much bravado, Fabindia submitted an undertaking on 27 August before the single bench of Justice SJ Kathawalla at the Bombay High Court saying that it did not intend to use the term ‘khadi’ for its products. This matter, however, had begun three years earlier. In July 2015, the KVIC had noticed that Fabindia was using the 'Khadi' tag and selling products bearing the mark 'Khadi', which was identical to KVIC’s registered trademark. According to lab test reports, the samples drawn by the KVIC from Fabindia showed that they were not Khadi products, but instead factory-made cotton garments bearing the tag of Khadi. A news report said: "On close scrutiny of garments sold by FabIndia it was found out that the labels stitched on the garments mentioned them as `FabIndia Cotton’ while the price tag, which was removable, had the word Khadi."

The ongoing case and the host of earlier judgments make a few things obvious. First, oblivious of the court orders, private entities continue using both the ‘Khadi’ trademark as well as the ‘charkha’ logo. Second, the KVIC remains dogged in pursuit of trademark violations. But what remains to be seen is how and whether all these court orders affect artisans on the ground. That’s matter for another story.