Rubinetterie Bresciane Bonomi Spa v. M/S.Lehry Instrumentation & Valves Pvt. Ltd.

OSA.No.252 of 2018

This case involves an Italian company, Rubinetterie Bresciane Bonomi Spa, which filed a suit against M/S.Lehry Instrumentation & Valves Pvt. Ltd. for passing off its trademark and design mark used on brass ball valves. The dispute escalated when the appellant challenged procedural orders passed during the trial process. The Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, holding that the impugned interlocutory orders did not qualify as 'judgments' under the Letters Patent, thereby rendering the appeals non-maintainable despite the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Madras High Court
Case Number
OSA.No.252 of 2018
Judge(s)
M.Sathyanarayanan

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Madras High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Rubinetterie Bresciane Bonomi Spa vs M/S.Lehry Instrumentation & Valves Pvt. Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademark32-IAL1606-2021 IN COMIPL1604-2021

Yogi Ayurvedic Products Pvt LtdvsThe Yogi And 2 Ors

The Plaintiff, a private limited company, filed an interim application seeking protection for its registered and formative marks under 'YOGI' against the Defendants. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants were infringing these marks and attempting to pass off their goods using 'THE YOGI' online. The Court found a prima facie case made out and permitted the plaintiff to proceed with the ad-interim relief application.

trademarkCOMMERCIAL (I.P.) SUIT (L) NO. 8246 OF 2023

Marico LimitedvsMW & Sons And Anr.

The dispute between Marico Limited (Plaintiff) and MW & Sons And Anr. (Defendants) concerning alleged infringement was settled on August 18, 2023. The parties entered into a Consent Minutes of Order, leading to the decreeing of the suit in favour of the Plaintiffs.

trademarkW.P.(C) No.21055 of 2019 (2025:KER:19627)

Kandamkulathy Ayurveda VaidyasalavsThe Registrar Of Trade Marks

The Kerala High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Kandamkulathy Ayurveda Vaidyasala seeking the rectification of a trademark registration held by another party. The court observed that the petitioner had already initiated proceedings for rectification before the Registrar of Trade Marks. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the writ petition but directed the Registrar to expedite the consideration and passing of orders on the existing rectification application within six weeks.

trademarkCS(COMM) 910/2024

Ms Khatema Fibres LimitedvsDr Rakesh Chandra Rastogi & Ors.

The Delhi High Court issued an order allowing Ms Khatema Fibres Limited to proceed with a rectification petition against the registered trademark 'KHATEMA' held by Defendant No. 1. The court formally initiated the proceedings, granting both parties specific timeframes—four weeks for the defendant's reply and six weeks for filing composite written synopses in related applications. This order sets the stage for a detailed legal battle over the validity of the trademark registration.

trademarkCMA(TM) No. 29 of 2025

Amara Raja Energy And Mobility LimitedvsThe Registrar of Trade Marks

The appeal challenged the rejection of an application (No. 5547423) by the Registrar of Trade Marks on the ground that it was deemed abandoned due to non-filing of a counter statement against opposition No. 1323716. The appellant argued they were never properly served with the notice of opposition, as proof of actual receipt via email was lacking. The Court held that without proof of actual receipt, the time limit for filing the counter statement does not run, and consequently, the application cannot be deemed abandoned.

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