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
The North Face Apparel CorpvsController of Patents and Designs
The North Face Apparel Corp challenged the Controller of Patents' refusal of its patent application (No. 202147026139) titled 'Systems and Methods for End-to-End Article Management' before the Madras High Court under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. The Controller had rejected the application citing lack of inventive step over prior art documents D21-D24. The Court held that the Controller erred by dissecting the claims into isolated elements rather than assessing the invention as a whole, and overlooked the use of spectrophotometer and invisible markers for tracking the manufacturing process, which were not disclosed in the cited prior art. The appeal was allowed and the Controller was directed to grant the patent.
Aventose Energy Private LimitedvsThe Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office Chennai
Aventose Energy Private Limited appealed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the refusal of its patent application (No. 202141019671) for a 'System and Method for Operating Automobiles with an Electric Drivetrain' featuring safe mode activation upon fault detection. The Madras High Court found that the Assistant Controller had contradicted the First Examination Report (which accepted novelty) by subsequently holding the invention lacked novelty without giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard. The court further held that the Controller improperly conflated novelty with inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and failed to properly analyze the claims against prior art documents D1–D4.
Apex Laboratories Pvt LtdvsElder Lifescience and Ambico Ayurvedic Health Care
Apex Laboratories Pvt Ltd, the prior adopter and registered proprietor of the trademark ZINCOVIT (TM No. 487453 in Class 5) since 1988, sought interim injunction against Elder Lifescience and Ambico Ayurvedic Health Care for using the deceptively similar mark NEO ZINCOVIT. The applicant also claimed copyright infringement of its registered artistic works (A-108878/2014) covering colour scheme, get-up, and layout. The Madras High Court was satisfied that the respondents were attempting to piggyback on the applicant's goodwill and granted interim injunctions on all three applications covering trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off.
Radico Khaitan LimitedvsPicadilly Agro Industries Limited
This Special Leave Petition arose from a judgment dated 29-05-2026 in CS No. 8/2025 passed by the District Judge, Karnal, Haryana, concerning a trademark dispute over the marks 'Cashmere' and 'Kashmyr' used in relation to beer and vodka. The Supreme Court noted that a First Appeal (FAO-COM-11-2026) was already pending before the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, listed for 28.10.2026. The Court disposed of the SLP without adjudicating it on merits, requesting the High Court to pass an appropriate order regarding the ad interim injunction on the scheduled date.
Maharaja Agrasen Technical Educational Society (Regd.)vsMaharaja Agrasen Himalayan Garhwal University
The plaintiff, Maharaja Agrasen Technical Educational Society, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant, Maharaja Agrasen Himalayan Garhwal University, alleging infringement and passing off regarding the use of the words 'Maharaja Agrasen' in the defendant's name. The Delhi High Court had previously granted a restraint order on 10.07.2026. During the pendency of the suit, the parties arrived at a settlement dated 14.09.2026, under which the defendant agreed to change its name through a statutory amendment while being permitted limited transitional use of its existing name. The court recorded the settlement, modified the interim order accordingly, and listed the matter for compliance reporting on 13.07.2027.
Varahi Diamonds And Finance LimitedvsSahil Vinay Mehra Trading As Mehra Sons Jewellers & Anr.
This is a commercial suit filed by Varahi Diamonds And Finance Limited against Sahil Vinay Mehra Trading As Mehra Sons Jewellers & Anr. before the Delhi High Court. The order is primarily procedural, dealing with the registration of the plaint, issuance of summons, directions for filing pleadings, and an interim injunction application. The matter was referred to mediation, with parties directed to appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
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.