Mixed Decisions
60 cases | Page 1 of 2
SAPAT International Private Limited v.Niravi Consumer LLP and Ors.
SAPAT International Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the trademark 'SAPAT' in Class 30 for tea (with roots tracing back to 1944/1957), sued Niravi Consumer LLP and related entities for trademark infringement and passing off after the defendants began using 'SAPAT' alongside their brand 'NIRAVI' on tea outlets and signages following termination of supply arrangements. The court had earlier recorded the defendants' statement on 28 January 2025 that they would not use 'SAPAT' on packaged tea. In IA(L) 18951/2025, the plaintiff alleged violation of that order, but the court held the statement was confined to packaged tea and the defendants were selling loose tea under the trading name Sapat & Co. Nashik, dismissing the violation application. However, the court found that the use of signages and invoices bearing 'SAPAT' did constitute infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademark.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Shoban Salim Thakur v.Chaitanya Arora & Ors.
This interim application before the Bombay High Court concerned a request by the Defendants to vacate an existing ad-interim injunction. The core dispute revolved around allegations of suppression by the Plaintiff regarding a specific condition attached to their trademark registration in Class 25 (footwear), which limited its exclusive use to Maharashtra. While the court acknowledged the seriousness of the suppression allegation, it granted the Plaintiff a final opportunity to file a Rejoinder before listing the matter for further consideration.
Vikas Abhimanyu Gupta v.Dive Marketing Private Limited
In this interim application concerning a commercial IP suit, the Bombay High Court addressed the respondent's willingness to withdraw certain trademarks. The court directed the respondent to file an affidavit from its responsible officer within one week, indicating that the matter is proceeding through procedural steps rather than a final judgment on infringement or validity.
UTO Nederland B.V. v.Tilaknagar Industries Ltd.
The Bombay High Court addressed complex trademark disputes involving UTO Nederland B.V. and Tilaknagar Industries Ltd., concerning the use of marks 'MANSION HOUSE' and 'SAVOY CLUB'. The court upheld an earlier order dismissing UTO’s attempt to stop passing off, while simultaneously setting aside interim orders that had allowed certain product introductions by Tilaknagar. Crucially, the judgment mandates maintaining the current status quo regarding these marks until the main suit is finally decided, emphasizing the need for expedited trial proceedings.
Reliance Industries Ltd. v.Rivpe Technology Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court ordered the continuation of litigation between Reliance Industries Ltd. and Rivpe Technology Pvt. Ltd., but only on a conditional basis. The parties had reached a settlement understanding requiring the defendant to cease using the trademark RIO or similar marks in relation to specific businesses by December 29, 2025. The court agreed to keep the suit in abeyance until January 5, 2026, allowing time for compliance with these terms. If the defendant complies, the plaintiff will withdraw the suit; otherwise, they remain free to pursue legal action.
Anheuser Busch Inbev India Limited v.Jagpin Brewerise Limited
In this trademark infringement matter, the Bombay High Court addressed motions filed by the defendant seeking to introduce a plea of invalidity. The court noted that since the defendants were uninterested in pursuing the current motions and had discharged their counsel twice, it was appropriate to dismiss the pending Chamber Summons and Notices of Motion for now. Furthermore, the court reinforced established Supreme Court precedent, clarifying that while rectification applications exist, the Civil Court must first determine the prima facie validity of the trademark before granting a stay on the suit.
Hytrans Beheer B.V. v.Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr.
The Bombay High Court set aside an earlier refusal order issued by the Trade Marks Examiner regarding the 'HYTRANS' trademark application. The court found that the original decision was cryptic, citing only sections of the Act without providing sufficient reasons or considering the detailed reply submitted by the petitioner. Consequently, the matter has been remanded to the Registrar for a fresh, reasoned hearing by a different officer.
Mineral Earth Sciences Llc v.X Development Llc
The Bombay High Court addressed the ongoing dispute between Mineral Earth Sciences Llc and X Development Llc concerning trademark matters. While no final decision was rendered on this date, the court maintained that any interim relief previously granted in the matter would continue to be effective until the next hearing date. The case is scheduled for further consideration on August 2nd, 2023.
Dharampal Satyapal Foods Ltd. v.Parle Products Pvt. Ltd.
Dharampal Satyapal Foods Ltd. filed a petition seeking the cancellation and removal of the trademark registration 'MAZELO' held by Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. The Bombay High Court, in its Commercial Division, permitted the petitioner to amend their petition to include the Registrar of Trademarks as Respondent No. 2. This procedural step moves the case forward toward challenging the validity of the existing trademark.
Franco Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Corona Remedies Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Franco Indian Pharmaceuticals against Corona Remedies concerning the marks STIMULIV and STIMULET. The core dispute involved the validity of the Defendant's trademark registration, which the Plaintiff challenged. Satisfied that the plea regarding invalidity was prima facie tenable, the court framed an issue on this matter and adjourned the suit for further proceedings.
Mastery Logistics Systems, Inc. v.The Senior Examiner of Trade Marks, Mumbai
The Bombay High Court addressed a petition seeking to quash an earlier trademark registration granted by the Senior Examiner. The Petitioner argued that their submissions regarding opposition were ignored in the original decision. Recognizing the need for a thorough review, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Trademark Authority for fresh consideration, ensuring both parties' contentions are taken into account.
Indi Pharma Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Bombay High Court addressed a petition filed by Indi Pharma Pvt Ltd seeking the restoration and renewal of its trademark 'VOMISET' (No. 711095). The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to restore the trademark within three weeks, allowing the petitioner to subsequently apply for renewal. Furthermore, the judgment emphasized that parties should pursue departmental remedies based on established legal precedents, rather than resorting to litigation against the Registrar.
Manya Vejju Alias Mv Kasi v.Sapna Bhog
This appeal before the Bombay High Court concerned an order restraining the appellant, Manya Vejju, from publishing statements alleging copyright infringement against the respondent, Sapna Bhog. The dispute centered on allegations of plagiarism between their respective romance genre literary works. The core legal question was whether the threat of infringement action fell under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The High Court found that the trial court's inquiry into the merits of the copyright claim exceeded its remit and consequently quashed the impugned order, remitting the matter back for a fresh determination.
Manya Vejju Alias Mv Kasi v.Sapna Bhog
This appeal before the Bombay High Court concerned an order restraining the appellant (Manya Vejju) from making statements alleging copyright infringement against the respondent (Sapna Bhog). The dispute centered on allegations of plagiarism and unauthorized copying between their respective literary works in the romance genre. The court held that determining whether actual infringement exists is beyond the scope of a suit under Section 60, as it risks prejudging an action for infringement. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the District Judge for fresh determination after considering the underlying infringement suit.
Pranay Satyendrakumar Goyal v.Muza Hospitality Private Limied
The Bombay High Court addressed an interim application concerning alleged trademark infringement. The Plaintiff accused the Defendants of breaching a prior undertaking by continuing to use the impugned mark 'DIVE' on their website and selling services under the similar name 'DEEPDOWN DIVE'. While the court did not rule on the merits, it granted the Plaintiff leave to file an Affidavit in Rejoinder and simultaneously granted the Defendants liberty to file an Affidavit in Sur Rejoinder. The matter is scheduled for further consideration.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Pradeep Dhidaria
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed an Interim Application against Pradeep Dhidaria alleging that the latter had slavishly copied the original artistic work featured on the Plaintiff's product packaging. The court examined the resemblance, noting similarities in elements like the starburst and globe depiction used on the rival product's trademark 'MASTER'. Based on this prima facie finding of copying and subsisting copyright, the court continued the ex-parte ad-interim relief granted earlier.
Resintech Inc v.The Senior Examiner of Trade Marks
The Bombay High Court intervened in a trademark application dispute, setting aside the Senior Examiner's refusal based on the mark being descriptive. The Petitioner argued that the Examiner failed to consider prior submissions regarding the distinctiveness of 'RESINTECH,' including its use by the applicant globally and its combination nature. Consequently, the court remanded the matter back for fresh consideration, ensuring all petitioner arguments are reviewed before a final decision is made.
Lakme Lever Private Limited v.Shyama Mai Enterprises And Anr.
This Bombay High Court judgment addresses a commercial arbitration application concerning the alleged misuse of the LAKME trademark. The court reviewed an affidavit from one respondent, who stated she was operating a salon under a different name ('8 to 8 Salon') and was not using the LAKME brand after her husband's death and the expiry of the franchise agreement. Given these new facts, the Court directed both parties to confer and provide instructions on whether the applicant still wishes to proceed with invoking Section 11 (likely related to trademark rights) and if the respondent is willing to remit past franchise fees.
Kewal Ashokbhai Vasoya And Another v.Suarabhakti Goods Pvt Ltd
This Commercial Appeal before the Bombay High Court addressed challenges raised by the original defendants against a time-limited, ad-interim injunction and court receiver appointed by the plaintiff. The suit itself was a trademark infringement action combined with passing off. The bench focused primarily on clarifying legal principles regarding applications made without notice to the opposing party.
Great White Global Private Limited v.S. S. Cable Mfg. Co.
In this trademark dispute, Great White Global Private Limited sought resolution against S.S. Cable Mfg. Co. The court noted that the defendants had communicated their intent to settle amicably and provided an undertaking not to use the disputed marks (SS GRAND WHITE or GRAND WHITE) in the future. Consequently, the matter was directed towards a formal settlement hearing, indicating a potential amicable resolution of the trademark conflict.
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.