Background

Rainbow Children’s Medicare Limited (RCML), a well-known hospital chain based in Hyderabad specializing in paediatrics, obstetrics, and gynaecology faced infringement of its rights in the mark/name RAINBOW by a Bengaluru-based firm, Rainbow Healthcare (RH). The case was filed by RCML before Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, who eventually dismissed RCML’s application for interim injunction and vacated an ex-parte order that initially restrained RH from using the mark/name RAINBOW.

The case note discusses a significant ruling in the ongoing battle over the trademark RAINBOW. The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in an Appeal granted interim relief to RCML, restraining a Bengaluru-based firm, Rainbow Healthcare (RH), from using the mark “Rainbow” or any deceptively similar variation pending final adjudication of the suit.

Trademark at the Heart of the Dispute

Rainbow Children’s Medicare Limited (RCML), incorporated in 1998 in Hyderabad, claims to be the first corporate entity to establish a dedicated children’s hospital under the name “Rainbow Children’s Hospital” in 1999. Over two decades, RCML has grown to operate 16 hospitals and 3 clinics across 6 cities and is a publicly listed company. The “Rainbow” mark, RCML argued, has become distinctive and closely associated with the healthcare services provided by them targeted towards children across India.

The trademark “Rainbow” and its formative variants are registered under various classes, including 42 and 44, and have been used consistently since 1998. RCML contended that Rainbow Healthcare’s adoption of an identical name for similar healthcare services was likely to confuse the public, amounting to trademark infringement and passing off.

Defence of Rainbow Healthcare

In its written statement, Rainbow Healthcare, a proprietorship based in Bengaluru, claimed to have adopted the name in 2013—two years before RCML entered the Bengaluru market. RH presented documentation and online evidence to support their claim of continuous use since 2013, asserting that the adoption was honest and without knowledge of RCML’s operations in Hyderabad.

RH alleged that there was considerable delay in initiating legal action by RCML. They issued a legal notice in 2021 and filed the lawsuit in 2023 despite RCML being aware of Rainbow Healthcare existence since 2015. This amounts to acquiescence, and RCML was barred from claiming equitable relief.

Trial Court’s Findings

The trial court acknowledged that RCML was the prior user and registered owner of the “RAINBOW” trademark but emphasized RH’s long-standing operations in Bengaluru, absence of malafide intent, and goodwill built over a decade. It held that the balance of convenience lay with the RH and denied the injunction.

High Court’s Verdict: Trademark Rights Trump Local Use

The Division Bench of the High Court in Appeal, however, took a different view.

1. It held that RCML’s registered trademark rights were nationwide and not restricted by geography.
2. The Division Bench (DB) observed that trademark law prioritizes registration and prior use, and once prima facie infringement is established, interim injunctions typically follow—more so in the instant case as both parties operate in an identical business.
3. DB observed that the trial court seems to have erred in placing undue weight on RH’s local goodwill and the alleged delay in enforcement, the High Court reiterated that mere delay does not defeat statutory trademark rights. It stressed the seriousness of confusion in the healthcare sector, where misleading branding could endanger public trust and patient safety.
4. DB concluded that the use of the mark “Rainbow Healthcare” posed a real likelihood of confusion, and permitted continuation would amount to infringement of the RCML’s registered rights.

Conclusion

The Division Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court’s order, and reinstated the interim injunction. Rainbow Healthcare has now been restrained from using “Rainbow Health Care” or any deceptively similar mark until the disposal of the suit.

The ruling serves as a notable reminder of the strength of registered trademarks and the courts’ caution in matters involving public health and branding confusion.