Short Summary
The Bombay High Court addressed the ongoing ad-interim injunction in a trademark infringement suit concerning the mark 'EPILIGHT'. While the court noted that previous orders needed extension, it confirmed that the existing restraining order against the defendants for using deceptively similar marks would continue to operate until November 18, 2019. The matter was subsequently scheduled for further hearing.
Detailed Summary
In the fast-moving world of pharmaceuticals and life sciences, a brand name can be a company's most valuable asset — and also its most vulnerable. When a competitor launches a confusingly similar mark, the legal battle that follows is rarely a clean knockout punch. More often, it's a war of attrition fought through temporary court orders, each one expiring like a ticking clock. The EPILIGHT trademark dispute before the Bombay High Court is a perfect illustration of this reality, where the petitioner had to keep returning to court just to keep the protective walls standing.
Nippon Life Sciences Private Limited, the petitioner in this case, found itself in a trademark infringement dispute concerning the mark 'EPILIGHT'. The opposing party, S. R. Life Science and another respondent, were alleged to be using marks deceptively similar to Nippon's registered brand. The matter had already progressed to a stage where the court had previously granted an ad-interim injunction — a temporary restraining order — against the defendants. However, such orders in trademark suits are not granted in perpetuity; they require periodic review and extension as the underlying suit moves toward final resolution. By November 8, 2019, the petitioner found itself back before the Bombay High Court seeking continuation of that protection.
The core legal friction in this case centered on the continuation of the ad-interim injunction. The petitioner, Nippon Life Sciences, argued that the defendants were using marks deceptively similar to 'EPILIGHT', creating a likelihood of confusion in the marketplace — a classic ground for trademark infringement relief. The respondents, on the other hand, contested the continuation of the restraining order. The court's role was not to deliver a final verdict on infringement, but to assess whether the temporary protection granted earlier should be extended, modified, or vacated. The legal tension lay in balancing the petitioner's right to protect its brand against the defendants' right to conduct business, all while the main suit remained pending.
The Bombay High Court acknowledged that the previous ad-interim orders required extension to maintain their protective effect. Rather than dismissing the petitioner's plea or granting permanent relief, the court took a measured, procedural approach: it confirmed that the existing restraining order against the defendants — prohibiting their use of the deceptively similar marks — would continue to operate until November 18, 2019. This short-term extension reflected the court's recognition that the petitioner had established a prima facie case warranting continued protection, while still leaving room for further examination. The matter was then scheduled for a subsequent hearing, signaling that the legal battle was far from over and that both parties would need to return to court to argue their positions further.
For founders and IP professionals, this case delivers a critical lesson: winning an ad-interim injunction is not the finish line — it's the beginning of a marathon. Temporary restraining orders in trademark disputes are subject to periodic review and must be actively defended at each hearing. Brand owners cannot assume that an initial favorable order will protect them indefinitely; they must be prepared to return to court, present updated evidence, and argue for extensions until the main suit is resolved. More broadly, this dispute underscores the importance of acting swiftly the moment infringement is detected, because in IP litigation, time is both your ally and your enemy — every day the injunction holds is a day your brand stays safe, but every lapse in court appearances could expose you to irreparable harm.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Bombay High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Nippon Life Sciences Private Limited vs S. R. Life Science And Anr. 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.