Blue Cross Laboratories Ltd. v. RB Remedies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

sg 1/10 nmsl2838-14

The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Blue Cross Laboratories, granting an interim injunction against RB Remedies Pvt. Ltd. The court found that the marks 'CEDON' and 'CEFDON' were deceptively similar, establishing a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off. Furthermore, the court allowed the plaintiff to combine both causes of action into the suit, dismissing the defendant's attempt to reject the plaint.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Bombay High Court
Case Number
sg 1/10 nmsl2838-14
Judge(s)
S.C. Gupte

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Bombay High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Blue Cross Laboratories Ltd. vs RB Remedies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkService Tax Appeal No. 597 of 2007

M/S. Hero Honda Motors Ltd.vsCommissioner Of Service Tax

Hero Honda appealed a Service Tax order confirming tax liability based on the Revenue's view that permitting third parties (BPCL, Tide Water, Savita Chemicals) to use its trade marks ('Hero Honda', 'Hero Honda 4T') constituted taxable Intellectual Property Services. The Tribunal ultimately ruled that the demand was largely barred by limitation because there was no evidence of suppression or malafide intent on the part of the appellant.

trademark2024:MHC:4066 (T) OP (TM) No.180 of 2023

Hatsun Agro Product LimitedvsV.Shanmugam And S.Murugesan (Trading as Arokiya Foods)

Hatsun Agro Product Limited sought the cancellation of a registered trademark ('AROKIYA') held by V.Shanmugam and S.Murugesan, alleging non-usage for over five years under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act. The Madras High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the respondent's minor alteration to the mark (removing a device mark) did not constitute a substantial change affecting its identity. Furthermore, the court found no merit in the petitioner's claim regarding non-usage.

trademarkWRIT - C No. - 992 of 2020

M/S Jai Hind Chemicals And AnothervsUnion Of India And 2 Others

The Allahabad High Court addressed a writ petition filed by M/S Jai Hind Chemicals seeking an early decision on an application to rectify a trademark registration. The petitioners alleged that the respondent's registered trademark was similar to their trade name, necessitating rectification. However, after considering arguments from both sides, the court concluded that the Trademark Registry (Respondent No. 2) was actively processing the matter and not deliberately delaying it. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the writ petition while urging the Registry to expedite its decision.

trademarkCS(COMM) 476/2025

Finesse International Design Pvt. LtdvsJaspinder Singh Trading As M/S Studio

The Delhi High Court issued an order in Finesse International Design Pvt. Ltd vs Jaspinder Singh Trading As M/S Studio, registering the civil suit and setting out procedural timelines for pleadings. Crucially, the court disposed of the Plaintiff's interim injunction application based on a specific undertaking by the Defendant, who assured the court that they had removed all infringing listings from their social media platforms and would not infringe the trademarks. The matter is now set to proceed towards trial.

trademarkCOM.A.P.No.83/2020

National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT)vsMc. GAN's Ooty School of Architecture

NIFT filed an arbitration petition challenging an award that favored Mc. Gan's Ooty School of Architecture (Respondent No.1). The dispute centered on Respondent No.1 allegedly violating the MOU by using NIFT's name and logo to solicit students, leading to termination. The court upheld the arbitrator's award, dismissing NIFT's petition.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our TM 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 trademark matter?

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

Get a Strategy Call