Kewal Ashokbhai Vasoya And Another v. Suarabhakti Goods Pvt Ltd

907-oscomapl-31992-2022

This Commercial Appeal before the Bombay High Court addressed challenges raised by the original defendants against a time-limited, ad-interim injunction and court receiver appointed by the plaintiff. The suit itself was a trademark infringement action combined with passing off. The bench focused primarily on clarifying legal principles regarding applications made without notice to the opposing party.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Bombay High Court
Case Number
907-oscomapl-31992-2022
Judge(s)
Gs Patel,Gauri Godse

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Bombay High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Kewal Ashokbhai Vasoya And Another vs Suarabhakti Goods Pvt Ltd is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademark

Khoday Distilleries Ltd.vsThe Scotch Whisky Association And Ors.

The appeal challenged the Assistant Registrar's order allowing rectification of the trade mark 'Peter Scot' (No. 273203). The respondents argued that the mark offended Section 9 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, as it was likely to deceive or cause confusion by suggesting Scottish origin. The court stayed the operation of the judgment pending further appeal.

trademark41 LPETN-20135-2025

Sun Pharma Laboratories LimitedvsRambos Lifesciences Pvt Ltd

The Bombay High Court allowed Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited's leave petition seeking to consolidate the cause of action for passing-off with the existing claim of trademark infringement against Rambos Lifesciences Pvt Ltd. The court found that since both causes of action arose from the same set of transactions, combining them was appropriate. Furthermore, the interim relief previously granted in the matter was directed to continue until the next hearing date.

trademarkCM(M)-IPD 50/2025

M/S Vibhava Marketing CorporationvsGoramal Hari Ram Limited

The Delhi High Court modified a previous order that had dismissed the petitioner's applications for filing additional documents. After arguments, both parties reached a consent agreement allowing M/S Vibhava Marketing Corporation to amend its Written Statement to include details of two preceding trademark registrations ('MONKEY 555 WONDER WASH' and 'MONKEY 555 THUNDER WASH'). This amendment allows the petitioner to argue that their prior rights should dismiss the plaintiff's infringement claim, subject to payment of costs.

trademarkDLND010011822018, ARBTN/299/2018

Global Car Group Pte. LimitedvsVienna IT Solutions Private Limited

Petitioners, owners of the trademark 'Cars24' and domain 'Cars24.com', challenged an arbitral award that dismissed their complaint seeking transfer of the disputed domain name 'cars24.in'. The petitioners argued that the respondent was engaging in domain squatting and lacked bona fide use. However, the Delhi District Court dismissed the petition, finding no grounds to interfere with the original arbitral award.

trademarkOSA (CAD) Nos.15 to 19 of 2025

M/S.Sakthi Sai Safety Glass India & Sakthi Sai Glass Traders (Appellants)vsCompagnie De Saint-Gobain & Saint-Gobain India Private Limited (Respondents/Plaintiffs)

The Madras High Court dismissed appeals challenging an interim injunction granted to Saint-Gobain against Sakthi Sai Safety Glass India. The court found that the appellants, despite their contract with Saint-Gobain expiring, were infringing the 'Saint-Gobain' trademark by using it in connection with toughened glass products. Given the prima facie evidence of consumer confusion and dilution, the balance of convenience favored the trademark owner, upholding the injunction while allowing the main suit to proceed.

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