Plaintiff Favorable
231 plaintiff favorable decisions from Bombay High Court.
Plaintiff Favorable Decisions
231 cases | Page 5 of 8
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Tuba Chemical Works
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. filed a Commercial IP Suit against Tuba Chemical Works alleging infringement and passing off related to its registered trademarks in Class 03. The Bombay High Court granted leave, decreed the suit, and issued permanent injunctions restraining the defendant from using similar logos or marks on detergent powder.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.H. R. Chemical
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a commercial IP suit against H. R. Chemical alleging infringement of its registered trademarks (Nos. 1486109, 1780462, and 1486107) and passing off in relation to detergent powder. The Bombay High Court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendant from using identical or deceptively similar logos.
Narayanlal Hemaji Mewada And Anr v.Rishabh Enterprise And Anr
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting a perpetual injunction against the defendants. The court restrained the defendants from using any label or domain name containing 'MARSHAL GRIP' or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered marks (MARSHAL/MARSHAL GRIP). Furthermore, the defendants were ordered to pay costs and destroy the wrappers of the impugned goods.
Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd. v.Vahini Enterprises And Anr.
The plaintiff, Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit against Vahini Enterprises and others alleging infringement of its registered trade mark 'Meena Prints' (Reg. No. 967504) and copyright in the mark. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendants from infringing or passing off goods using similar marks.
Trans Union Cibil Ltd. v.Chetani Manufacturing and Trading Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim order favoring Trans Union Cibil Ltd. against Chetani Manufacturing and Trading Pvt. Ltd. The court found prima facie evidence that the defendant was infringing the 'CIBIL' trademark, misrepresenting itself as connected with CIBIL to the public, and collecting money from victims. Consequently, the injunction prevents the defendant from using or enabling others to use the protected trademarks in relation to credit scores and reports until the final disposal of the suit.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.J.K.Enterprises
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. filed a Commercial IP Suit against J.K.Enterprises regarding trademark infringement related to detergent powder. The Bombay High Court granted leave and passed an order restraining the Defendant from manufacturing, marketing, or selling goods using marks similar to the Plaintiff's distinctive trademarks WHEEL and Device of SPLAT.
Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd. v.Tata Kumar Swamy and Anr.
The petitioner, Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit against the respondents alleging infringement and passing off related to its registered trade mark 'Meena Prints' and copyright in its artistic work. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendants from using deceptively similar marks and ordered them to pay damages/costs.
Hotel Panchavati v.Shree Panchvati Veg Restaurant
The Plaintiffs filed a suit against the Defendants alleging infringement and passing off related to their well-known 'Panchavati' marks. The court decreed the suit, granting perpetual injunctions against the Defendants for using similar marks like 'Shree Panchvati'. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 was directed to pay Rs. 10 Lacs.
Gebi Products v.Rose Industries
Gebi Products filed a suit against Rose Industries alleging infringement of its registered trademark and copyright related to the packaging and mascot used on brooms. The court decreed the suit, granting perpetual injunctions against the defendant for using deceptively similar marks and designs, and ordered the payment of damages.
Hotel Panchavati And Anr. v.Hotel Panchavati Pure Veg Family Restaurant and Ors.
The suit was filed regarding the infringement and passing off of the Plaintiff's registered trade marks, PANCHAVATI / PANCHAVATI GAURAV. The Bombay High Court granted leave to the plaintiffs and decreed the suit, issuing a perpetual injunction against the defendants.
Asian Paints Ltd. v.A1 Colours Paints
Asian Paints Ltd. filed a suit against A1 Colours Paints alleging infringement and passing off related to its registered trade marks APEX and ROYALE. The court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit in favor of Asian Paints.
Asian Paints Ltd. v.A1 Colours Paints
Asian Paints Ltd. filed a suit against A1 Colours Paints alleging infringement and passing off related to its trade marks APEX and ROYALE. The court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit in favor of Asian Paints.
Asian Paints Ltd. v.A1 Colours Paints
Asian Paints Ltd. filed a suit against A1 Colours Paints alleging infringement and passing off related to its registered trademarks, APEX and ROYALE. The court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and decreed the suit in favor of Asian Paints, issuing perpetual injunctions against the defendant's use of similar marks (APEXS and ROYAL) on paint products.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.National Chemical Works
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against National Chemical Works alleging infringement of its well-known trade mark 'SUNLIGHT' and its copyright in the associated artistic packagings. The court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act, decreed the suit, and passed permanent injunctions against the defendant.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.National Chemical Works
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against National Chemical Works alleging infringement of its registered trademarks (SUNLIGHT) and copyright in artistic packagings. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendant from using similar marks ('SOOLIGHT') and reproducing the copyrighted trade dress on detergents.
Unilever Plc v.Golden Assam Tea Depot
Unilever Plc filed an IP suit against Golden Assam Tea Depot for trademark infringement. The dispute centered on the defendant's use of the impugned trade mark "Sipton" and other deceptively similar marks in relation to tea products, which infringed upon Unilever's registered trademarks, particularly "Lipton".
Kokanratna Holiday Resorts Limited v.Millennium & Copthorne International Limited
The Bombay High Court granted a limited ad-interim relief to Kokanratna Holiday Resorts Limited, protecting its use of the name 'Hotel Millennium Park' and associated domain. The court ruled that pending the final suit, the Defendant must provide at least 7 days prior written notice before initiating any legal action claiming infringement or passing off against the Plaintiff. This decision provides immediate protection against groundless threats while the main litigation proceeds.
Nawaz Modi and Anr. v.Design Your Body Art/New Body Art Fitness Club and Ors.
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Body Basic Healthcare Pvt Ltd (Nawaz Modi), finding that the defendants were infringing on their registered trademarks and engaging in passing off. The court granted a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from using similar marks like 'NEW BODY ART' or misrepresenting their services as connected to the plaintiffs. Furthermore, the defendants were ordered to withdraw an application for registration of the mark 'BODY ART GYM' and pay substantial damages.
Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd. v.Shri Ajanta Fabrics And 9 Others
The petitioner filed an IP suit against the respondents alleging infringement and passing off related to their registered trademarks ('Meena Prints' and 'Cotton Design') and associated copyrights used in textile goods. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendants from using similar marks and ordered them to pay damages.
Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd. v.Shri Ajanta Fabrics And 9 Others
The petitioner, Meena Prints Pvt. Ltd., filed an IP suit against Shri Ajanta Fabrics and others for infringement and passing off related to its registered trademarks ('Meena Prints' and 'Cotton Design') and associated copyrights. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendants from using similar marks in relation to textile goods.
Magnolia Ltd. v.Softgel Health Care Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court granted a temporary injunction favoring Magnolia Ltd. against Softgel Health Care Pvt. Ltd. The court ordered that pending the final disposal of the suit, the defendant is restrained from manufacturing, selling, exporting, or using the disputed trademark 'VAGICLIN Plus' in connection with any pharmaceutical product. This interim order significantly protects the plaintiff's brand rights while the main infringement case proceeds.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.Joshi Products
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. filed an IP suit against Joshi Products alleging infringement of its copyrighted artistic label and distinctive trade dress for its detergent powder, WHEEL. The Bombay High Court granted leave to defend the suit and subsequently decreed it in favor of HUL.
Hotel Panchavati Gaurav v.Anviti Foods And 2 Others
Hotel Panchavati Gaurav filed an IP suit against Anviti Foods and others alleging infringement of its registered trademarks and copyright related to the name PANCHAVATI GAURAV. The Bombay High Court granted perpetual injunctions restraining the defendants from using the infringing marks and ordered the defendants to pay Rs. 12,00,000/- towards costs/damages.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Suchit Industries
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Suchit Industries alleging infringement related to the soap brand 'Karan'. The defendant, Suchit Murkute, admitted manufacturing soaps under the brand but undertook not to use the splat logo in the future. The Court granted leave and decreed the suit based on these undertakings.
Hotel Panchavati Gaurav v.Saikadam Foods And Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
Hotel Panchavati Gaurav filed an IP suit against Saikadam Foods And Beverages Pvt. Ltd. for infringing its registered trademarks and copyrights associated with the name PANCHAVATI GAURAV. The Bombay High Court granted leave, decreed the suit, and passed a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from using similar marks or labels.
Tapas Kanti Mandal v.Cosmo Films Ltd.
The petitioner, a former employee of Cosmo Films Ltd., challenged an injunction granted by the trial court restraining him from working in competing businesses after his resignation. The plaintiff company relied on a non-compete clause and confidentiality agreements regarding trade secrets and proprietary knowledge. The High Court ruled that post-service negative restrictive covenants are generally not enforceable, favoring the petitioner's right to profession.
Syed Zakirali S/o Syed Jawarali v.Syed Zahidali S/o Syed Jawarali & Ors
The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal filed by Syed Zakirali against the dismissal of his civil suit concerning trademark infringement. The court held that Defendant No. 2 was illegally passing off goods as those of the plaintiff using disputed wrappers and labels ('322 pucca label' and '322 A.K.'). Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using these marks if the plaintiff renews them, and ordered to pay damages or render accounts of profits.
Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Private Limited v.Karmaveer Shankarrao Kale Shahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited
This appeal before the Bombay High Court challenged a trial court order that restrained the appellants from using the artistic label 'Military Santra' for selling country liquor. The appellants argued that the respondent-plaintiff had prior knowledge of the label since 2005 and was therefore acquiescent, invalidating the injunction. Furthermore, they contended that their own usage since 1975 established their copyright in the artwork. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the restrictive order and directing the trial court to expedite the disposal of the main Copyright Suit.
Kleenage Products (India) Pvt.Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks And Anr
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Kleenage Products, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to restore and renew the trademark 'KLITOLIN'. The core issue was whether the mandatory prior notice (Form O-3) under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, had been issued before the mark's removal. Since the respondents could not provide documentary evidence proving the issuance of this critical notice, the Court held that the removal was illegal and allowed the petitioner to renew the trademark.
Ansari Bilal Ahmadlal Mohd. (Appellant) v.Shafeeque Ahmed Mohammad Sayeed (Respondent-Plaintiff)
The Bombay High Court dismissed the defendant's commercial appeal, upholding the original plaintiff's claim of passing off. The court found that a strong prima-facie case existed for passing off, despite differences in calligraphy and design elements. Considering the target audience—laborers with imperfect recollection—the court ruled that the defendant's use of 'SUKOON' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established brand, thereby protecting the plaintiff's proprietary rights.
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.