Short Summary
The Bombay High Court overruled a preliminary objection and allowed an appeal against an order directing the removal of a trademark from the register. The appellant, Anil Shah Trading As Le Shark India, had challenged the order passed by a single judge in a commercial miscellaneous petition filed by Le Shark Apparel Limited. The court held that the appeal was maintainable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Detailed Summary
[Cites
32
, Cited by
0
]
Bombay High Court
Anil Shah Trading As Le Shark India vs Le Shark Apparel Limited on 18 April, 2026
Author:
Bharati Dangre
Bench:
Bharati Dangre
1/25 901 COMAPL-40525-25.odt
Salgaonkar
MANDIRA MILIND Digitally signed by MANDIRA
MILIND SALGAONKAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SALGAONKAR Date: 2026.04.23 17:53:16 +0530
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) NO.40525 OF 2025
IN
COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.538 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.40663 OF 2025
IN
COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) NO.40525 OF 2025
Anil Shah Trading as Le Shark India .. Appellants
& Anr.
Versus
Le Shark Apparel Limited & Anr. .. Respondents
...
Mr.Alankar Kirpekar with Mr.Lakshyaved R. Odhekar,
Mr.Omkar N. Mhasde and Mr.Ayush Tiwari for the Appellants.
Mr.Rohan Kadam with Ms.Rucha Vaidya, Mr.Manosij
Mukharjee, Mr.Dominic Alvares, Mr.Ritik Gupta and Ms.Sneha
Meghani i/b Suvarna Joshi for the Respondents.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 18th APRIL, 2026
...
ORDER (PER BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
1. The present Appeal is filed by the Appellants, challenging
the order dated 14/10/2025 passed in Commercial
Miscellaneous Petition No.538 of 2022 filed by the Le Shark
::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 04:42:02 :::
2/25 901 COMAPL-40525-25.odt
Apparel Limited, United Kingdom, who instituted Rectification
Application seeking removal of the Appellants' long standing
registered trademark "LESHARK" Registration No.466002 in
Class 25 from the Register of Trade Marks. The application
primarily was premised on the ground that the Appellants had
not used their mark and the invoices placed on record to
establish its user, were fabricated and they had no bona fide
intent to use the mark and the adoption of the mark was
dishonest.
By order dated 14/10/2025, Commercial Miscellaneous
Petition No.538 of 2022 was made absolute by concluding that
Section 57
of the Trade Marks Act,
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Bombay High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Anil Shah Trading As Le Shark India vs Le Shark Apparel Limited is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
M/S Biofi Medical Health Care India Private LimitedvsM/S Excel Tech A Partnership Firm
M/S Biofi Medical Health Care filed a Writ Petition to challenge an ex parte temporary injunction order passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal. The trial court had restrained the petitioners from manufacturing/marketing products using the respondents' intellectual property rights (patents, designs, trademarks). The High Court directed the Trial Court to dispose of all pending interlocutory applications expeditiously while allowing the interim order to continue until disposal.
Janssen Pharmaceuticals & OthersvsMSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiffs, patent holders of Indian Patent No. 312847 covering a combination therapy for diabetes (Metformin + Canagliflozin), filed suit against the defendant for infringement. The court found that a prima facie case was made out in favor of the plaintiffs and granted an ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or marketing the infringing product.
Britannia Industries LtdvsThe Deputy Controller Of Patents & Designs & Anr.
Britannia Industries Ltd appealed an order from the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs regarding the cancellation of a registered biscuit packet design. The appellant argued that the design lacked novelty due to prior publication in magazines and a textbook, which the Deputy Controller failed to consider.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.vsOziel Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application for a consent decree in the dispute between Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Oziel Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. The parties reached an amicable settlement regarding trademark infringement concerning 'PEPFIZ' and 'MINOZ'. Key terms include Defendants recognizing Plaintiff's exclusive rights, agreeing to cease use of deceptively similar marks like 'PEPFIX' and 'MINOZIL', and changing the product name from 'MINOZIL' to 'MINODYL'. The court partially decreed the suit based on these binding settlement terms.
Pharmacyclics LlcvsDeputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Pharmacyclics Llc appealed the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs' decision dated March 5, 2024, which refused to grant a Patent under Section 15 of the Act. The appellant also filed an application seeking condonation of eight days delay in filing the appeal.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
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.