Short Summary
The Bombay High Court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for injunction in a passing-off suit against Hindustan Lever Limited. The court found that the defendant's mark 'AYUSH' was not deceptively similar to the plaintiff's 'AYUSHAKTI,' and crucially, it held that mere possibility of confusion is insufficient; actual misrepresentation must be demonstrated. Furthermore, the court presumed the plaintiffs had knowledge of pre-existing marks, but ultimately concluded there was no likelihood of consumer confusion.
Detailed Summary
In the world of trademarks, similarity is not always synonymous with infringement. For founders and brand builders, this distinction can be the difference between protecting years of investment and watching a competitor carve out space in your market. The Bombay High Court's decision in the dispute between Ayushakti Ayurved and Hindustan Lever is a textbook reminder that the law does not protect brands from every overlap — only from those that genuinely mislead the public.
Ayushakti Ayurved Pvt. Ltd., a company rooted in Ayurvedic products, claimed prior rights over the mark 'AYUSHAKTI.' Hindustan Lever Limited, one of India's largest consumer goods conglomerates, adopted and used the mark 'AYUSH' for its own products. Believing that the two marks were deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion in the marketplace, Ayushakti Ayurved moved the Bombay High Court seeking an injunction to restrain Hindustan Lever from using the 'AYUSH' mark. The dispute thus set a small, specialized Ayurvedic company against a corporate heavyweight in a classic passing-off confrontation.
Ayushakti Ayurved argued that the mark 'AYUSH' was deceptively similar to its own 'AYUSHAKTI,' and that consumers would likely be confused into believing the two brands were connected or affiliated. The company sought to establish a prima facie case of passing off based on the visual and phonetic overlap between the two marks. Hindustan Lever countered that 'AYUSH' was sufficiently distinct from 'AYUSHAKTI' and that no actual misrepresentation was occurring in the market. The court was therefore tasked with weighing whether the similarity between the marks was enough to justify restraining a major player from using a mark that, while related in theme, was structurally and commercially distinct.
The Bombay High Court dismissed Ayushakti Ayurved's motion for injunction, ruling in favor of Hindustan Lever. The court held that the defendant's mark 'AYUSH' was not deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark 'AYUSHAKTI.' Crucially, the court emphasized that mere possibility of confusion is insufficient in a passing-off action — what must be demonstrated is actual misrepresentation leading to genuine public deception. The court further presumed that the plaintiffs had knowledge of pre-existing marks in the market, and after weighing the totality of circumstances, concluded that there was no likelihood of consumer confusion between the two brands. The injunction was refused, leaving Hindustan Lever free to continue using the 'AYUSH' mark.
For founders and IP professionals, this case delivers a hard lesson: similarity alone will not save your brand. When pursuing a passing-off action, you must be prepared to show not just that two marks look or sound alike, but that the defendant's use is actually misrepresenting your goods or services to the public. Courts will also weigh whether you had knowledge of similar marks already in the market. The safest path is to choose distinctive, defensible marks from the outset — and to remember that descriptive or commonly used words in your industry may be fair game for competitors, no matter how established your brand feels.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Bombay High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Ayushakti Ayurved Pvt. Ltd. vs Hindustan Lever Limited is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Mahesh Namkeen Pvt. Ltd.vsOm Prakash Nebhwani (Trading as: Mahesh Matar Namkeen)
Mahesh Namkeen Pvt. Ltd., a Lucknow-based company engaged in manufacturing namkeens and snacks since 1983 under the trademark 'MAHESH' (with parrot device), sued Om Prakash Nebhwani for trademark infringement and passing off. The defendant, who is the nephew of the plaintiff's director and had prior knowledge of the mark, adopted the identical 'MAHESH' mark with parrot/peacock device for his own namkeen business in Jaipur. The defendant's defense was struck off for non-filing of written statement. The court found the plaintiff's mark to be distinctive, well-established, and a well-known trademark, and held that the defendant's use constituted slavish copying amounting to infringement and passing off.
Ms Pas AgrovsM/S Krbl Limited & Anr
Ms Pas Agro has filed a petition under Section 124(1)(b)(ii) of the Trademarks Act challenging the Commercial Court's order dismissing its application to frame a preliminary issue on the invalidity of KRBL's registered trademark 'INDIA GATE' (application no. 599833). The underlying suit CS (COMM) 78/2025 was filed by KRBL against Pas Agro. The Delhi High Court issued notice, permitted deletion of respondent no.2, and granted time for filing reply and rejoinder. The substantive question of whether a preliminary issue on trademark invalidity should be framed remains pending.
Cryogas Equipment Private LimitedvsInox India Limited & Ors.
The Supreme Court disposed of a miscellaneous application seeking extension of time for the trial court to decide Trademark Suit No. 3 of 2019 between Cryogas Equipment Private Limited and Inox India Limited. As a last opportunity, the Court granted an additional six months to the concerned court to decide the suit, while expressly warning that no further extension would be entertained. The underlying dispute concerns trademark rights in the cryogenic/industrial gas equipment sector.
Mankind Consumer Products Private LimitedvsAlaina Healthcare Private Limited & A. Menarini India Private Limited
Mankind Consumer Products, the registered proprietor of the trademark ACNESTAR (Reg. No. 1352577 in Class 5) since 2005, sued Alaina Healthcare and A. Menarini India for using the marks ACNE SCAR/ACNE+SCAR/ACNESCAR on their acne scar serum product HEXILAK. The court found a prima facie case of deceptive similarity, noting that the dominant feature 'ACNE' was common and the suffix 'STAR' vs 'SCAR' was insufficient to distinguish the marks, especially given the identical trade channels and consumer class. The court granted an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff while allowing defendant no. 2 a two-month period to recall existing stock from the trade.
Healthium Medtech Limited (earlier Healthium Medtech Private Limited)vsThe Registrar of Trade Marks, Chennai
Healthium Medtech Limited filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to compel the Registrar of Trade Marks to expeditiously dispose of Opposition No. 1027536 filed by Glenmark Pharmaceuticals against Healthium's trademark application No. 4270882 for the 'Healthium' device mark in Classes 05 and 10. The petitioner complained that despite evidence having been adduced, the opposition proceedings remained pending without a final hearing. The Madras High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Registrar to hear both parties and dispose of the opposition on merits within four weeks.
CavinKare Private LimitedvsMaha Aqua, Trading As Mahalakshmi Aqua
CavinKare Private Limited filed a trademark infringement suit against Maha Aqua (trading as Mahalakshmi Aqua) seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from using the mark 'MAA' or any deceptively similar mark in respect of goods in Class 32. The plaintiff relies on its registered trademarks 'MAA' under Nos. 1109946 and 6453733. The Court, after issues were framed and affidavits of admission/denial filed, approved a Joint Case Management Schedule suggested by both parties and set timelines for completion of evidence and oral arguments.
Facing a trademark dispute?
Arctic's TM litigation team handles ~120 trademark matters per year across India, EU, and UK. From oppositions to infringement actions, we build winning arguments from precedent.
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.