Bombay High Court
667 cases · page 3 of 23
Showing 61–89Ipca Laboratories Limited v.Anrose Pharma
The suit was filed alleging infringement and passing off concerning the Plaintiff's registered trade mark ZERODOL. The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant's use of 'ZEROVOL-P' was deceptively similar, confusingly misleading, and aimed at capitalizing on the Plaintiff's goodwill in medicinal preparations. Given the Defendant failed to contest the suit despite being served, the Court decreed the suit.
Shilpa Shetty Kundra v.Getoutlive.in & Ors.
Shilpa Shetty Kundra filed an Interim Application alleging that unknown persons used her photographs to generate and circulate obscene, sexually explicit deepfake content created via artificial intelligence. She sought immediate orders to remove all infringing content from online platforms due to the severe damage to her reputation and dignity. The Court passed an interim order directing all defendants to delete the specified URLs and instructing government bodies (MeitY and DoT) to pull down the unlawful content.
Marico Limited v.Essen Products India Limited
The Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief in favor of Marico Limited against Essen Products India Limited. The court allowed a leave petition to combine claims for passing off with trademark and copyright infringement. Based on prima facie evidence, the court found that the defendant's product was deceptively similar to Marico's well-established brands (Parachute and Nihar) and depicted in pirated artwork. Consequently, an injunction was issued preventing the defendants from using similar marks or trade dress pending the final disposal of the suit.
Sapat International Pvt Ltd v.Niravi Consumer Llp And Ors.
This interim application addressed allegations of contempt against the defendants for allegedly violating a prior court order. The plaintiff claimed that despite undertaking not to use the 'Sapat' mark in advertising packaged tea, the respondents continued to use 'Sapat Tea' on cash receipts and invoices. The court found prima facie evidence suggesting the violation, noting that the use of 'Sapat Tea' on sales documents amounted to advertisement. Consequently, the matter was listed for further consideration to determine compliance with the solemn undertaking.
Indian Express And Commercial Ventures and ... v.Fundamental Hospitality Private Limited and ...
The Bombay High Court dismissed the Plaintiff's interim application seeking to restrain the Defendants from using the mark 'HOM'. The court found that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off. Key factors included the lack of sufficient evidence demonstrating substantial goodwill associated with the acronym 'HOM', the distinct calligraphy used by the Defendant, and the fact that both restaurants cater to discerning customers in premium segments, making confusion unlikely.
Kirti Dal Mills Limited v.Rajesh Lunkad
Kirti Dal Mills Limited challenged an order that stayed its Commercial Suit No. 1 of 2024, citing the pendency of a previous suit. The core dispute involved claims of passing off and copyright infringement related to edible oils under the brand 'CHAMPION'. The High Court found that the trial court misinterpreted the provisions of the Trade Marks Act and the Commercial Courts Act while applying Section 10 CPC. Consequently, the impugned stay order was quashed, allowing the commercial suit to proceed.
R P Scherer Technologies Llc v.The Patent Office of India
The petitioner challenged the rejection of its Indian Patent Application (No. 202127050600) by the Assistant Controller on grounds of lacking inventive step. The core issue was whether the claimed formulation for oral delivery of poorly permeable proteins/peptides was non-obvious over cited prior art. Given the technical nature, the Court appointed a Scientific Advisor to render an opinion.
Ultratech Cement Limited v.Dalmia Cement Bharat Limited
The Bombay High Court addressed the trademark infringement suit filed by Ultratech Cement against Dalmia Cement Bharat. The court formally framed seven key issues, including whether the defendant's use of 'DALMIA ULTRA' infringes upon Ultratech's registered trademarks and whether there is an act of passing off. This judgment sets the stage for detailed evidence presentation, directing the plaintiff to file affidavits within four weeks.
Neon Laboratories Limited v.Vishal Subhash Versus Parekar Syndicate Pharma
The Bombay High Court confirmed the existing ad-interim injunction regarding trademark 'NEON' infringement, finding that the rival mark was identical. Furthermore, the court granted interim relief concerning passing off, noting a strong prima facie case that the products were counterfeit and caused misrepresentation. The court also allowed the petitioner's leave petition to combine the causes of action for trademark infringement and passing off.
Marico Limited v.Minolta Natural Care
The Bombay High Court addressed an interim application in a commercial IP suit filed by Marico Limited against Minolta Natural Care. The court noted that the plaintiff had presented a strong prima facie case for infringement covering trademark, copyright, design, and artistic work based on rival products. While the defendant sought time to explore an amicable settlement, the court granted a short adjournment but made it clear that if no resolution is reached by the next date, the interim application will proceed to final hearing.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Rambos Lifesciences Pvt Ltd
The Bombay High Court allowed Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited's leave petition seeking to consolidate the cause of action for passing-off with the existing claim of trademark infringement against Rambos Lifesciences Pvt Ltd. The court found that since both causes of action arose from the same set of transactions, combining them was appropriate. Furthermore, the interim relief previously granted in the matter was directed to continue until the next hearing date.
Abdul Rahim Khalilur Rehman v.Abdul Karim Khalilur Rehman
The Bombay High Court addressed two Commercial Arbitration Petitions concerning a dispute over the dissolved partnership firm's assets, specifically the 'Moulvi' trademark. The core issue was whether third parties (Respondent Nos. 3 and 4) could be bound by the ongoing arbitration proceedings against Respondent No. 1. The court ruled that instead of granting immediate relief, it converted the petitions into Section 17 applications, directing the Petitioner to raise the 'alter ego' doctrine before the Arbitral Tribunal itself. This allows the tribunal, guided by Supreme Court precedent, to determine if the third parties are bound by the existing arbitration agreement.
Bisleri International Private Limited v.Yogesh Chaurasia
The Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Bisleri International Private Limited against Yogesh Chaurasia. The court found prima facie evidence that the defendant was passing off their packaged drinking water as being associated with the plaintiff. Specifically, the judge noted that the defendant's mark 'BRISLEI,' labels (OXY FINE and BILIFE), bottle design/shape, and even the green cap were substantially similar to Bisleri's distinctive trade dress. This ruling provides immediate protection to Bisleri while the main suit proceeds.
Le Shark Apparel Limited v.Anil Shah And 2 Ors
The Bombay High Court granted rectification to remove a registered trademark (No. 466002) belonging to the Respondents, which was identical to the Petitioner's established global mark 'LE SHARK'. The court found that the Respondents had fraudulently adopted the mark and lacked evidence of genuine use, thereby allowing the Petitioner to proceed with its brand in India. This decision reinforces the principle that a trademark register must maintain purity against deceptive or fraudulent registrations.
Energy Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v.Flora Beverages India Pvt Ltd
In a commercial IP suit concerning energy beverages, the Bombay High Court allowed the plaintiff's request to consolidate multiple claims. The court granted leave for Energy Beverages Pvt. Ltd. to combine its cause of action for passing off with those related to trademark and copyright infringement. This procedural step allows the parties to address all facets of their intellectual property dispute within a single legal framework, paving the way for further substantive hearings.
Unilever Global Ip Limited v.As Print Pack Global Private Limited
The Plaintiffs sought permission from the Bombay High Court to combine their cause of action involving infringement and passing off. The court allowed the interim application. Furthermore, the suit against Defendant No. 4 was disposed of based on Consent Minutes of the Order, while the suit continued against Defendants No. 1 to 3.
Signify Holding B V v.Kalpesh Bhomaram Prajapati & Anr.
In this trademark dispute, Signify Holding B V sought relief against Kalpesh Bhomaram Prajapati regarding the use of the mark 'dignify'. The court noted the defendant's submission that they do not intend to continue using the mark and expressed willingness to resolve the suit amicably. Consequently, the High Court granted a one-week standover period to facilitate settlement while temporarily restraining the defendant from making any further sales under the disputed trademark.
Anita Rajesh Upadhyay v.Automark Industries (India) Pvt.Ltd.
The Bombay High Court partially allowed a writ petition challenging an order that appointed a Court Commissioner in a trademark infringement suit. The court found that the original application lacked proper foundation, was filed long after the injunction, and contained arbitrary directions regarding premises searches. While quashing the impugned order, the High Court directed the trial court to reconsider the application afresh, taking into account the defendant's objections regarding the commissioner's appointment.
Baba Wheel Alignment Through Its Proprietor Mohammed Firoz Mohammed Shafi v.Sailani (S) Baba Wheel Alignment Through Its Proprietor Sayyad Kadar Sayyad Shabbir
This contempt petition was filed by Baba Wheel Alignment against Sailani (S) Baba Wheel Alignment, alleging continued use of a registered trademark despite an existing court injunction. The petitioner argued that the respondent had committed grave contempt by continuing to use the protected name and style. Although the petitioner requested a bailable warrant, the Court decided to stand over the matter for further hearing on October 7, 2025.
Asian Paints Limited v.Galaxy Paints Private Limited
The Bombay High Court granted Asian Paints Limited leave to combine its claims for trademark/copyright infringement with passing off against Galaxy Paints Private Limited. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of passing off, noting the deceptive similarity between the 'TRACTOR SHYNE' and 'MAGIC TOUCH' trade dresses. Furthermore, the Court issued an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or selling products using similar branding until the suit is finally disposed of.
M/S. Adarsh Pharmaceutical Works v.Rhugved Pharmaceuticals
The Bombay High Court addressed a writ petition filed by M/S. Adarsh Pharmaceutical Works challenging the rejection of its application for a stay of proceedings in a related trademark suit. The petitioner argued that since their own suit regarding the same product was already pending and had an injunction, the subsequent suit filed by Rhugved Pharmaceuticals seeking passing off should be stayed under Section 10 of the CPC. The Court agreed with the petitioner's stance, directing that the District Judge-12, Nagpur, shall not proceed with Trademark Suit No.3 of 2023 in the interim.
Mangalam Organics Ltd v.N Ranga Rao And Sons Pvt Ltd
The Bombay High Court dismissed the Plaintiff's interim application seeking injunction against the Defendant for alleged trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, noting significant differences in packaging and vending methods between the two products. While rejecting defenses of laches and acquiescence, the judge concluded that the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that consumers would be misled into believing the goods were those of the Plaintiff.
Pidilite Industries Ltd. v.Vilas Nemichand Jain
The Bombay High Court allowed Pidilite Industries Ltd. to amend its original suit, which was initially filed for passing off. The plaintiffs sought to introduce claims for trademark infringement after successfully registering their mark during the pendency of the trial. The court ruled that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC would not apply in this case, noting that allowing the amendment would prevent multiplicity of proceedings. This decision allows the suit to evolve and incorporate stronger IP protections.
Bisleri International Private Limited v.Bisheshwar Mahto
The petitioner, Bisleri International Private Limited, sought interim relief against the respondent for infringing its trademarks and copyrights concerning packaged drinking water. The court granted ad-interim injunctions restraining the defendant from using deceptively similar marks and artwork, and also allowed leave to combine the passing off claim with the infringement suit.
Bisleri International Private Limited v.Priti Rajawat, Sole Proprietor Of M/S ...
Bisleri International Private Limited filed an Interim Application seeking further ad-interim relief against Priti Rajawat for alleged infringement of its trademarks (BRISLERI), copyright in its label/packaging, and design/shape. The court noted that previous interim orders were granted but had not been served on the Defendants. Consequently, the court ordered service of the relevant order before hearing and disposing of the current application.
Bisleri International Private Limited v.Bisheshwar Mahto
The plaintiff, Bisleri International Private Limited, filed an interim application seeking injunctions against the defendant for infringing its trade marks (BISLERI) and copyrights. The court granted ad-interim relief restraining the defendant from using similar marks, artwork, and designs on packaged drinking water products.
Murari Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd. v.Haresh Patel Trading As Hans Zarda And Registrar of Trademarks Trade Marks Registry, Mumbai
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Murari Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd., ordering the cancellation and removal of the trademark 'HANS ZARDA' (No. 2660422). The court found that 'HANS ZARDA' was visually, structurally, and phonetically deceptively similar to the Petitioner’s established mark, 'HANS CHAAP'. Furthermore, the court noted a lack of credible evidence regarding the Respondent's continuous use of 'HANS ZARDA', leading it to conclude that the mark should be expunged from the register to prevent consumer confusion.
Ceat Limited v.Ramu Kushwha & Anr.
The Plaintiff, Ceat Limited, filed an interim application alleging infringement of its trade mark 'CEAT' and copyright in its artistic label by the Defendants using similar marks ('CREATA', 'CATE') and artwork. The court granted temporary injunctions restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling goods bearing these infringing marks/artworks.
M/s. ARCEE Electronics v.M/s. ARCEEIKA
M/s. ARCEE Electronics filed a Commercial IP Suit alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'ARCEE' and tortious passing off against M/s. ARCEEIKA, claiming that the latter used a similar name ('ARCEEIKA') for electronic goods showrooms. The core dispute centered on territorial jurisdiction, as Defendant No. 2 challenged the court's competence to hear the matter. The Bombay High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendant, finding that neither the Plaintiff nor any part of the cause of action had sufficiently been demonstrated to have arisen within the court's territorial limits.
M/s. ARCEE Electronics v.M/s. ARCEEIKA
M/s. ARCEE Electronics filed a Commercial IP Suit against M/s. ARCEEIKA alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'ARCEE' and tortious passing off, concerning electronic goods. The core dispute revolved around the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to hear the matter. Despite arguments from the Plaintiff that their business activities extended into Mumbai city, the Court found that the Plaint failed to adequately plead or demonstrate that either the Plaintiff carried on business in Mumbai or that any part of the cause of action arose within its limits. Consequently, the suit was returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code.
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.