Bombay High Court
667 cases · page 1 of 23
Showing 1–29Colgate-Palmolive Company & Anr. v.Anchor Health and Beauty Care Private Limited
This Chamber Summons was filed by Colgate-Palmolive Company and Colgate-Palmolive (India) Limited in their 1996 trademark infringement and passing off suit against Anchor Health and Beauty Care Private Limited, seeking to bring on record six renewed Legal Proceedings Certificates (LPCs) evidencing renewal of their trade mark registrations. The Bombay High Court allowed the application, directing the LPCs to be marked into evidence as Exhibits P-50 to P-55, along with two additional LPCs as P-56 and P-57, while reserving Anchor's liberty to challenge the evidentiary weight and probative value of these documents.
Shazia Kidwai And Anr. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, Trademark Division, Intellectual Property Bhavan And Anr.
This is a brief procedural order from the Bombay High Court in an interim application arising from a first appeal concerning trade mark matters. The appellant's counsel sought time due to difficulty in presenting arguments, and the court granted a stand-over, adjourning the matter to 23 December 2026.
The Procter and Gamble Company v.Naresh Shamani Trading as Jadugar Chemicals
The Procter and Gamble Company filed two Commercial Miscellaneous Petitions (Nos. 37 and 42 of 2026) seeking rectification of a trademark registered in the name of Naresh Shamani Trading as Jadugar Chemicals. Respondent No. 1, the Registrant, failed to appear, and while physical service had returned undelivered, e-mail service was effected. The court granted the Petitioner liberty to effect private service within two weeks and listed the matter for directions on October 23, 2026.
The Procter and Gamble Company v.Naresh Shamani Trading as Jadugar Chemicals
The Procter and Gamble Company filed two Commercial Miscellaneous Petitions (Nos. 37 and 42 of 2026) before the Bombay High Court seeking rectification of a trademark registered in the name of Respondent No. 1, Naresh Shamani Trading as Jadugar Chemicals. The Respondent did not appear despite service attempts, with physical service having returned undelivered though email service was effected. The Court granted the Petitioner liberty to effect private service on the Registrant within two weeks and adjourned the matter to October 23, 2026 for directions.
The Indian Express (P) Ltd. v.Sanskar Singhaniya & Ors.
The Indian Express (P) Ltd. filed a commercial IP suit against Sanskar Singhaniya and others for trademark infringement and passing off, alleging that the defendants' use of 'THE BHARAT EXPRESS' mark and the domain 'thebharatexpress.com', along with a similar 'flame-of-hope' logo, infringed the plaintiff's registered trademarks. The defendants, despite being served, failed to appear and through a communication dated 11 September 2026, informed the plaintiff that they did not intend to contest the matter and had adopted a new name and logo. The Bombay High Court decreed the suit in terms of the relevant prayer clauses, granting permanent injunctive relief against the defendants.
Harale Seva Sangh v.Registrar Of Trademarks
The petitioner, Harale Seva Sangh, filed a Commercial Miscellaneous Petition before the Bombay High Court against the Registrar of Trademarks. The petitioner's advocate sought leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to file appropriate rectification proceedings in compliance with applicable process requirements. The court disposed of the petition as withdrawn, granting the liberty prayed for.
The Brand Brewery Private Limited & Anr. v.Arman Anand
This Interim Application arose from a commercial intellectual property rights suit concerning trademark infringement. The Defendant, through his counsel, gave an undertaking to the Bombay High Court to discontinue the use of the marks impugned at Exhibits 'D' and 'E' to the plaint and to transition to a new trademark depicted at Annexure-1 within six months. The Court accepted the statement as an undertaking given to the Court and disposed of the Interim Application in those terms.
KSB SE & Co. KGaA & Anr. v.M/s. UK Fire System
The plaintiffs, KSB SE & Co. KGaA, proprietors of the trademark 'KSB' in Classes 7, 9, 11 and 35, filed a commercial intellectual property rights suit against M/s. UK Fire System for trademark infringement. The defendant, through its sole proprietor Mr. Shah Shariq Ahmed, filed an affidavit-in-reply giving undertakings acknowledging the plaintiffs' trademark rights and agreeing not to use the 'KSB' mark or any deceptively similar mark, and not to deal in counterfeit products. The court accepted the undertakings and decreed the suit on admission, while disposing of the connected interim application.
KSB SE & Co. KGaA & Anr. v.M/s. UK Fire System
This was a commercial intellectual property rights suit filed by KSB SE & Co. KGaA and another against M/s. UK Fire System for alleged infringement of the trademark 'KSB' registered in Classes 7, 9, 11, and 35. The defendant, through its sole proprietor Mr. Shah Shariq Ahmed, filed an affidavit-in-reply giving undertakings acknowledging the plaintiffs' proprietorship of the 'KSB' trademark and agreeing not to use the mark or any deceptively similar mark, not to deal in counterfeit products, and to surrender any infringing material. The court accepted the undertakings and decreed the suit on admission, while disposing of the connected interim application.
Net World Sports Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Net World Sports Limited filed a petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks. The respondent's counsel fairly stated that he had instructions to dispose of the petition by way of remand, given the degree of detail in the reasoning adopted in the impugned order. By consent, the petition was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Registrar of Trademarks for appropriate reconsideration by a responsible officer.
Metro Brands Limited v.Met Brands Private Limited
Metro Brands Limited, a Mumbai-based footwear retailer, filed a commercial IPR suit against Met Brands Private Limited, a Kerala-based company, alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. The plaintiff sought leave under Clause 14 of the Bombay High Court Letters Patent to join the cause of action for passing off (which arose in Kerala) with its trademark infringement claim filed in Bombay. The Bombay High Court dismissed the leave petition, holding that since both causes of action arose in Kerala and the defendant carried on business there, the plaintiff should file the suit in the appropriate forum in Kerala rather than exercising its discretionary choice of forum in Bombay.
Zee Learn Limited v.Pragati Shiksha Shrot Trust
Zee Learn Limited filed a Section 9 petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim relief against Pragati Shiksha Shrot Trust for continued use of its registered trademarks 'MOUNT LITERA ZEE SCHOOL' and proprietary MLZS Program after termination of their licensing agreements. The Court found a prima facie case in favor of the Petitioner regarding the termination and granted partial relief, restraining the Respondent from using the trademarks and proprietary programme and directing disclosure of financial records. However, the Court rejected prayers for revival of the contractual relationship, a bank guarantee of Rs.48,39,440.76/-, and appointment of a Court Receiver.
Geekay Enterprises v.Ganesh Builders & Ors.
Geekay Enterprises (Plaintiff) filed an Interim Application seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the Defendants from creating third-party rights or undertaking construction on a suit property in Village Nahur, Mumbai, in connection with a redevelopment scheme. The Plaintiff claimed rights to balance FSI under an Agreement dated 28 October 1997, after M/s. Ganesh Builders had constructed 'Samata Apartments' on part of the property. The Bombay High Court rejected the Interim Application, holding that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, that the suit was not filed with necessary alacrity given an 11-year delay, and that the Plaintiff could be adequately compensated in monetary terms.
Exquisite Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. v.Oberoi Realty Limited and Ors.
This interim application was filed by Defendant No.1, Oberoi Realty Limited, seeking rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the Plaintiffs' failure to exhaust mandatory pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The underlying suit was filed by Exquisite Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and flat purchasers against the developer and municipal authorities, seeking declarations regarding their undivided share in land and FSI, injunctions against ongoing construction, and conveyance of their share. The Bombay High Court rejected the application, holding that the suit genuinely contemplated urgent interim relief due to the continuing nature of the alleged wrong, and the prayer for interim relief was not a mere camouflage to bypass the statutory mediation requirement.
Activision Publishing Inc v.Oao Info India Pvt Ltd
This entry does not constitute a judgment but rather a cause list entry from the Bombay High Court dated 21 August 2026. Two matters filed by Activision Publishing Inc against OAO Info India Pvt Ltd were listed as fresh matters (COMMP(L)/27173/2026 and COMMP(L)/27270/2026) before Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan. As per the board's header note, the petitioner was directed to issue private notice, and the matters were to be listed as post-notice matters three weeks later on 18 September 2026.
Bhavesh Suresh Kataria v.Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd.
This case involves a trademark dispute between Bhavesh Suresh Kataria, proprietor of 'Kataria Jewellery Insurance Consultancy', and Kataria Insurance Brokers Private Limited, both operating in the insurance sector. The Plaintiff had obtained an expansive interim injunction from a Single Judge restraining the Defendant from using the mark 'KATARIA' in any form. After the Defendant's appeal to the Division Bench set aside this order, the Supreme Court remanded the matter directing the Defendant to seek vacation before the Single Bench. The Bombay High Court varied the interim order, allowing the Defendant to retain its corporate name but prohibiting it from acting as a market intermediary in gems and jewellery insurance, and imposing conditions on its domain name and website usage.
Sanjay Dattaram Salgaonkar v.State of Maharashtra And Anr.
This is an anticipatory bail application filed by Sanjay Dattaram Salgaonkar in connection with FIR No. 08 of 2026 registered with the State Excise Department, Kagal, District Kolhapur, for offences under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Applicant contended he was arraigned solely on the basis of the statement of a co-accused, while the prosecution alleged his involvement and that he received money in his account, with the owner of Canus Packaging stating the Applicant managed the company's day-to-day affairs. Since the Applicant cooperated with the investigation and the State confirmed that custodial interrogation was not required, the application was disposed of.
Metro Brands Limited v.Paul's Metro Shoe Shoppe & Ors. (Silas Paul Bandari, Xavier Paul Bandari, Murthy Anjali)
The Plaintiff, Metro Brands Limited, proprietor of the registered and prior-used trademark 'METRO' used since 1955 in footwear, filed a praecipe seeking withdrawal of the present Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 21274 of 2026 along with connected Interim Application and Leave Petition, with liberty to institute a fresh and comprehensive suit. The Plaintiff cited the inadvertent non-follow-up of earlier 2021 proceedings (Commercial Suit No. 314 of 2021) and the need to comprehensively plead all material facts and subsequent developments as grounds for withdrawal. The Bombay High Court allowed the withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh suit, permitted refund of court fees, and disposed of the connected interim application and leave petition.
Metro Brands Limited v.Pauls Metro Shoe Shoppe And Ors.
The Plaintiff, Metro Brands Limited, proprietor of the registered and prior-used trademark 'METRO' used since 1955 in relation to footwear, sought withdrawal of its Commercial IPR Suit (L) No. 21274 of 2026 along with the connected Interim Application and Leave Petition, with liberty to institute a fresh suit. The Plaintiff explained that earlier proceedings filed in 2021 against the same Defendants were inadvertently not followed up, and the material facts relating to those proceedings were not comprehensively incorporated in the present pleadings. The Bombay High Court allowed the withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh and comprehensive suit, permitted refund of court fees, and disposed of the connected Interim Application and Leave Petition.
Metro Brands Limited v.Paul's Metro Shoe Shoppe & Ors. (Silas Paul Bandari, Xavier Paul Bandari, Murthy Anjali)
Metro Brands Limited, the proprietor of the registered and prior-used trademark 'METRO' (used since 1955 in relation to footwear), sought withdrawal of its 2026 commercial IP suit against Pauls Metro Shoe Shoppe and others with liberty to file a fresh suit. The plaintiff explained that an earlier 2021 suit (Commercial Suit No. 314 of 2021) against related defendants had inadvertently not been followed up, and the material facts of those earlier proceedings were not comprehensively incorporated in the present pleadings. The Bombay High Court allowed the withdrawal with liberty, permitted refund of court fees, and disposed of the connected interim application and leave petition.
Jyothy Labs Ltd. v.Dabur India Ltd.
Jyothy Labs Ltd. filed a commercial IP suit against Dabur India Ltd. for infringement and passing off of its registered trademarks containing the word 'NEEM' as the leading and essential feature, used in relation to toothpaste and dentifrices. The Plaintiff sought interim relief restraining the Defendant from using an impugned label mark that prominently featured 'NEEM'. The Bombay High Court allowed the Interim Application, holding that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case of both infringement and passing off, and that the balance of convenience lay in its favour.
Bisleri International Private Limited v.Belaguli Mahalingegowda Kirankumar, proprietor of Kalabyraveshwara Mineral Water Industry
Bisleri International Private Limited filed a commercial IP suit against Belaguli Mahalingegowda Kirankumar, proprietor of Kalabyraveshwara Mineral Water Industry, alleging that the Defendant was manufacturing and selling packaged drinking water under the deceptively similar mark 'Bislie'. The Plaintiff contended that the Defendant had merely deleted the letter 'r' and interchanged the positions of 'e' and 'i' from the Plaintiff's registered trademark 'Bisleri', along with copying the artistic work, colour scheme, and trade dress. Despite service, the Defendant failed to appear, and the Court allowed the Interim Application and Leave Petition, granting ad-interim relief including injunction and appointment of a Court Receiver.
Bisleri International Private Limited v.Belaguli Mahalingegowda Kirankumar (proprietor of Kalabyraveshwara Mineral Water Industry)
Bisleri International Private Limited sued Belaguli Mahalingegowda Kirankumar, proprietor of Kalabyraveshwara Mineral Water Industry, for trademark infringement and copyright piracy arising from the defendant's use of the mark 'Bislie' on packaged drinking water. The Bombay High Court found a strong prima facie case that 'Bislie' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'Bisleri,' with the defendant having merely deleted the letter 'r' and rearranged 'e' and 'i.' The court granted ad-interim relief including injunctive relief and appointment of a Court Receiver to search and seize infringing goods.
Hamilton Housewares Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Yogi Products
This was a Commercial IP Suit filed by Hamilton Housewares Pvt Ltd and another against Yogi Products concerning alleged infringement of trade dress and copyright relating to pickle containers. The Plaintiffs marketed their product as 'Milton Pickle Container' while the Defendants sold a competing product called 'Apex Pickle Container'. The parties settled all disputes through Consent Terms executed during the hearing, with the Defendant submitting to a decree on admission restraining it from manufacturing, marketing, or selling products under the impugned trade dress, artwork, or packaging deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs' products.
Hamilton Housewares Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Yogi Products
This was a commercial IP suit filed by Hamilton Housewares Pvt Ltd and Anr against Yogi Products concerning alleged infringement of trade dress and copyright relating to pickle containers. The plaintiffs marketed their product as 'Milton Pickle Container' while the defendants sold a competing 'Apex Pickle Container' with allegedly similar trade dress and packaging. The parties settled all disputes through Consent Terms executed on the date of hearing, with the defendant submitting to a decree on admission restraining them from manufacturing, marketing, or selling the impugned product.
SAPAT International Private Limited v.Niravi Consumer LLP and Ors.
This trademark infringement and passing off suit was filed by SAPAT International Private Limited against NIRAVI Consumer LLP and related defendants, alleging that the defendants' use of the mark 'SAPAT' on tea products and at retail outlets constituted infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademark in Class 30 and passing off. The defendants, partnership firms involving Ritu Nikhil Joshi and Nikhil Joshi (a director of the plaintiff company), marketed tea under the brand 'NIRAVI' while displaying 'SAPAT' on signages and hoardings. The Bombay High Court found that the defendants' use of signages and invoices infringed the plaintiff's registered trademark, but dismissed the application alleging violation of the earlier order dated 28th January, 2025, holding that the restriction was confined to packaged tea and the defendants were selling loose tea.
City and Industrial Development Corporation v.Union of India & Ors.
The City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) filed writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The Court relied on its earlier judgment holding that CIDCO is covered by the exclusionary clauses of Section 16 of the EPF Act, and accordingly allowed the petitions by setting aside the impugned orders.
City and Industrial Development Corporation v.Union of India & Ors.
City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) filed writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Vashi, under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act). The petitioner contended that CIDCO is an excluded establishment under Section 16 of the EPF Act. The Bombay High Court, relying on its earlier judgment and the Supreme Court's ruling in Yeshwant Gramin Shikshan Sanstha, allowed the writ petitions and set aside the impugned orders dated 26 February 2019 and 17 October 2018.
Zarina Dada And 3 Ors v.The State Of Maharashtra And 4 Ors
The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition filed by the heirs of Late Ahamad Izzat Mohammed Hasham Dada, challenging the legality of a land acquisition award dated 23 September 1986, a corrigendum thereto dated 5 April 2017, and a subsequent notice dated 27 April 2017 under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, concerning their land at Kurla, Mumbai. The court found that the acquisition process failed to comply with the mandatory statutory requirements, rendering the award and corrigendum void. The court directed the respondents to undertake a fresh exercise for determination of compensation under the LA Act, 1894, and publish a fresh award within three months.
Hab Pharmaceutical and Research Limited v.Strava Healthcare Private Limited
The plaintiff, Hab Pharmaceutical and Research Limited, filed a Commercial IP Suit against Strava Healthcare Private Limited for infringement of trademark, copyright, passing off, and damages. Both parties informed the court that they had settled the dispute and tendered Consent Terms signed by their respective directors and advocates. The Bombay High Court took the Consent Terms on record, accepted the statements therein as undertakings to the Court, and decreed the suit in terms of the Consent Terms.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.