Hindustan Unilever Ltd v. Azizur Rahaman And 4 Ors

IAL No. 29115 of 2022 / CS No. 36 of 2023

The Bombay High Court allowed Hindustan Unilever Ltd's petition to combine its claims for passing off with those for trademark and copyright infringement. This strategic move aims to streamline litigation by consolidating multiple causes of action into a single proceeding. Consequently, the court expanded the existing ad-interim injunction, reinforcing the restraint on defendants from manufacturing or trading goods that deceptively resemble HUL's distinctive brands like Lakme and its associated artistic works.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Bombay High Court
Case Number
IAL No. 29115 of 2022 / CS No. 36 of 2023
Judge(s)
Bharati Dangre

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Bombay High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Hindustan Unilever Ltd vs Azizur Rahaman And 4 Ors is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentFAO (COMM) 170/2025

Pawan Kumar Mittal Proprietor, Salasar Dev Basmati HousevsVijay Gupta & Ors.

The Delhi High Court overturned a District Judge's refusal to grant an ex parte ad interim injunction in a trademark infringement case. The court held that the lower court failed to provide any reasoning for its disinclination, which is legally unsustainable when addressing such urgent relief. Citing precedent regarding passing off and infringement, the High Court emphasized the necessity of immediate action, including appointing a Local Commissioner, if a prima facie case exists.

patentCS(COMM) 270/2020

M/S Babu Ram Om PrakashvsMr. Roger Aoun

The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of M/S Babu Ram Om Prakash against Mr. Roger Aoun regarding the use of the trademark 'BLACK DIAMOND'. The plaintiff, a long-standing manufacturer of cosmetics and mehandi products, alleged that the defendant was deceptively adopting their registered mark. Citing prima facie evidence and irreparable loss, the court restrained the defendant from using the disputed mark until further hearing.

patentC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 667/2022 and connected matters

M/S P.M. Diesels P. Ltd.vsM/S Thukral Mechanical Works & Ors.

In a complex 40-year dispute over the 'FIELDMARSHAL' trademark, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S P.M. Diesels Pvt. Ltd. The court set aside previous orders from the IPAB that had rejected P.M. Diesels' applications and cancelled a key registration held by Thukral Mechanical Works. This landmark decision allows P.M. Diesels to proceed with registering its mark, effectively resolving a long-standing conflict over brand ownership in the diesel engine sector.

patentW.P.(IPD)No.34 of 2025

Rajkumar SabuvsSabu Trade Private Ltd.

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Rajkumar Sabu challenging the acceptance and subsequent advertisement of the trademark 'SACHAMOTI' in favor of Sabu Trade Private Ltd. The petitioner sought to quash the acceptance report, arguing that the application was based on fabricated documents and should not proceed without hearing him. However, the Court found that the petitioner's interlocutory petition lacked statutory basis and noted that he already had a remedy available through lodging an opposition under the Trademark Act.

patentOSA No. 8 of 2023 (C/W OSA No. 2, 3, etc.)

Classic Legends Private Limited / Mr. Boman R. IranivsThe Official Liquidator of M/S Ideal Jawa Private Limited

The Karnataka High Court allowed appeals filed by Classic Legends Private Limited (and Mr. Boman R. Irani) against an earlier ruling concerning the trade marks of Ideal Jawa. The court ruled that since the company had not used or renewed its registered trade marks for decades, no goodwill would subsist, and the rights had dissipated due to non-use. This decision significantly impacts the value and enforceability of the brand in liquidation proceedings.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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 patent matter?

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

Get a Strategy Call