Short Summary
The Bombay High Court passed an order by consent in a Commercial IP Suit concerning trademark infringement and passing off. The court granted permanent injunctions against Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, restraining them from infringing or passing off the Plaintiff's registered METRO marks. Additionally, Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were directed to pay costs of Rs. 10 Lakhs.
Detailed Summary
In the world of intellectual property, not every trademark battle ends with a dramatic courtroom showdown. Sometimes, the most powerful weapon a brand owner has is the weight of their own registered rights—so heavy that the infringer simply agrees to stop. The dispute between Keva Flavours Pvt. Ltd and Asian Chem Works Pvt. Ltd before the Bombay High Court is a striking example of how a well-documented trademark portfolio can bring an opponent to the table, and how a consent order can deliver the same finality as a hard-fought verdict.
Keva Flavours Pvt. Ltd, the plaintiff, held registered trademarks under the METRO mark. These registrations gave the company exclusive legal rights to use the METRO brand in connection with its goods. Asian Chem Works Pvt. Ltd, along with other defendants, stood accused of infringing those METRO marks and engaging in the tort of passing off—essentially trading on the goodwill and reputation that Keva Flavours had built. The dispute landed before the Bombay High Court as a Commercial IP Suit, a specialized forum designed to handle complex intellectual property disputes efficiently.
The legal friction in this case centered on a fundamental question in trademark law: whether the defendants' use of similar marks amounted to infringement of Keva Flavours' registered METRO trademarks, and whether their conduct misled consumers into believing their goods originated from or were associated with the plaintiff. While the full texture of the arguments is captured in the consent order itself, the very fact that the matter resolved by consent suggests that the defendants ultimately recognized the strength of the plaintiff's registered rights and the legal exposure they faced. In trademark disputes, the existence of valid registrations shifts the burden heavily onto the alleged infringer, and continued defiance carries significant commercial risk.
On 2 May 2019, the Bombay High Court passed an order by consent—a decree that carries the full force of a court judgment because all parties agreed to its terms. The court granted a permanent injunction restraining Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from infringing or passing off the plaintiff's registered METRO marks. This was not a temporary measure pending trial; it was a final, binding prohibition. Additionally, the court directed Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to pay costs of Rs. 10 Lakhs to the plaintiff. Because the order was passed by consent, it functioned as a decree settling the suit, giving Keva Flavours the legal certainty and market exclusivity it sought without the uncertainty of a contested trial.
For founders and brand owners, this case offers a clear lesson: building and maintaining a portfolio of registered trademarks is not merely a legal formality—it is a strategic asset that can compel infringers to back down. When your marks are properly registered and your rights are well-documented, opponents often find that the cost of continuing the fight far outweighs the cost of conceding. A consent order, while sometimes mistaken for a 'weak' outcome, is in fact a powerful resolution: it delivers a permanent injunction, costs, and finality, all without the risk of an adverse ruling. If you discover infringement, act decisively—because in trademark law, the strength of your paper trail often determines the strength of your negotiation.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Bombay High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Metro Brands Limited vs Reliance Retail 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.