Praveen Murarka v. Bhama Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd.

M.A. No.2488/2020

This appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court addressed a dispute over registered designs of water bottles. The appellant, Praveen Murarka, sought an injunction against the respondent for allegedly infringing his registered design ('Kool Kommandar') with their product ('Cool Cutie'). The core legal issue revolved around whether the Commercial Court correctly applied the test of 'exact similitude' or if the proper standard under the Designs Act, 2000, was the 'look alike' factor. The High Court ultimately found that the designs were substantially similar and set aside the lower court's order, allowing the injunction.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Number
M.A. No.2488/2020
Judge(s)
Sujoy Paul

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in design matters before Madhya Pradesh High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Praveen Murarka vs Bhama Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

designCS(OS) 30/07 (IA 189/07 & IA 2819/07)

Reckitt Benckiser (India) LtdvsWyeth Limited

The suit concerned the infringement of Reckitt Benckiser's registered design for an S-shaped spatula used with its Veet hair removal cream. The defendant challenged the validity of this registration, arguing that the design was published abroad prior to the Indian filing date. The court found prima facie evidence that the design had been publicly available before 05.12.2003.

designC.O. 3086 of 2023

Shah Mayankkumar BharatkumarvsController Of Patents And Designs & Anr.

The petitioner filed a revisional application before the Calcutta High Court, aggrieved by the excessive delay in disposing of an opposition filed by opposite party no. 2 against their Registered Design (No. 304927). The court disposed of the application by directing the Controller of Patents and Designs to conclude the pending opposition proceedings within two months.

design

Baldev SinghvsM/S Godran Rubber Plastic Industries

This case involved a suit for infringement under the Designs Act, 1911, where the plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions against the defendant for pirating their registered footwear design. The core legal dispute revolved around whether the plaintiff had a valid right to protection when evidence suggested that a prior entity (Liberty Footwear Company) possessed an identical or similar design registration dating back earlier than the plaintiff's. The court ultimately ruled that one 'pirator cannot injunct another pirator,' leading to the vacation of the interim injunction granted to the plaintiff.

designCIVIL APPEAL NOS. 996-997/2010

M/S Godrej Sara Lee LimitedvsReckitt Benckiser Australia Pty.Ld.

The appeal challenged the Delhi High Court's decision regarding its jurisdiction to entertain appeals against orders passed by the Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata, which cancelled several registered designs for 'Insecticide Coil'. The Supreme Court held that since the cause of action arose in Kolkata (where the cancellation occurred), the Calcutta High Court, not the Delhi High Court, had the proper jurisdiction.

designCS (COMM) 90/2018

M/S Kamdhenu LimitedvsM/S Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd.

Kamdhenu Limited sued Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd. alleging infringement of its registered design for steel bars featuring a double-ribbed surface pattern. The defendant challenged the validity of this registration, arguing that the design was merely a common feature found in industry standards and prior publications. The Delhi High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendant, finding that the plaintiff's design lacked novelty because it reflected established industry practices and known standards.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Protecting your design rights?

Design disputes move fast. Arctic's IP team specializes in interim relief, design invalidation, and cross-border enforcement strategies.

Speak to a specialist →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar design matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call