Burroughs Wellcome (India) Ltd. v. Uni-Sole Pvt. Ltd. & Another

null

The plaintiffs, owners of the trademark "Septran" and copyright in its carton, sued the defendants for infringement and passing off. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were using a deceptively similar mark ("Simptran") and an identical or substantially similar carton design for their product Simptran Tablets. The court passed an interim order restraining the defendant from continuing these infringing activities pending final disposal of the suit.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Bombay High Court
Case Number
null
Judge(s)
S.H. Kapadia

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Bombay High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Burroughs Wellcome (India) Ltd. vs Uni-Sole Pvt. Ltd. & Another is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkSCA/10245/2010, SCA/10246/2010

PACS CHEMICALS THRO. DIRECTOR, ANJU S BHATTvsUNION OF INDIA & 4

The petitioners challenged the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks dated 17/05/2010, which dismissed their opposition and granted registration in favour of Respondent No. 5 for a trademark application (No. 1641653/1641655). The court held that since an alternative statutory remedy of appeal was available to the petitioners, the writ petitions could not be entertained.

trademarkC.S.(Comm.Div)No.184 of 2024 & OP(TM)Nos. 35 & 47 of 2024

Dr. K. Sudhagar / M/s.Gamete Cells Science Healthcare Private LimitedvsP.Raja / M/s.ART VITROLABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED / The Registrar of Trade Marks

The Madras High Court disposed of a complex suite of trademark infringement and rectification cases involving 'VITRO LAB' after the parties reached an amicable resolution. The plaintiffs, Dr. K. Sudhagar and M/s.Gamete Cells Science Healthcare Private Limited, had filed suits seeking injunctions against passing off and damages from P.Raja and M/s.ART VITROLABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED. Simultaneously, Original Petitions were filed to rectify the trademark register concerning related marks. The court formally closed all proceedings based on a Memorandum of Understanding executed between the parties.

trademarkCS(COMM) 1038/2025

X & Anr.vsY & Ors.

The Delhi High Court extended an existing ex parte ad-interim injunction against a trademark infringer, ANCHOR/, to seven newly identified entities. This extension was granted after the Plaintiffs successfully demonstrated that these new parties were involved in dealing/selling counterfeit products during a local commission investigation. Furthermore, the court allowed the immediate execution of the local commission without prior notice to prevent disruption of evidence gathering.

trademarkS.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 428/2021

Harish Khatri S/o Late Shree Radheyshyam KhatrivsM/s Khatri Pannalal Premraj Bidi Manufacturer, Firm City Sawai Madhopur

The Rajasthan High Court modified a previous temporary injunction that had halted business operations by restricting the use of the registered trademark 'Macchis Brand Bidi'. Recognizing that both parties are partners in the firm, the court stayed the restriction on using the trademark until the underlying partnership dispute is resolved. This decision allows the defendants to continue their trade while ensuring the main suit proceeds expeditiously.

trademarkFAO-IPD 43/2021

M/S Pornsricharoenpun Co Ltd & Anr.vsM/S L'Oreal India Private Limited & Anr.

The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by M/S Pornsricharoenpun Co Ltd, setting aside a trial court order that had restrained them from using the phrase 'HAIR SPA'. The court ruled that since 'HAIR SPA' is a generic and descriptive term commonly used in the cosmetics industry to denote hair treatment, its use by the appellants under their registered trademark 'BERINA' did not constitute trademark infringement. This decision emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between proprietary marks and common trade language.

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