Unilever Plc. v. Ashok Kumar

IN COM IPR SUIT NO.82 OF 2022 / INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2308 OF 2022

The court heard an interim application filed by Unilever Plc. seeking amendments to its suit plaint and related petitions. The Plaintiffs sought to incorporate additional impugned marks and parties into the case title based on new information received from a Court Receiver's Report. The court allowed the amendments and continued the existing exparte ad-interim order.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Bombay High Court
Case Number
IN COM IPR SUIT NO.82 OF 2022 / INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2308 OF 2022
Judge(s)
R.I. Chagla

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Bombay High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Unilever Plc. vs Ashok Kumar is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkCOMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO.234 OF 2019

Hotel Panchavati & Anr.vsHotel Panchvati & Anr.

The Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief in a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Hotel Panchavati & Anr. The court recognized the Plaintiffs' well-known reputation and goodwill associated with the 'PANCHAVATI' marks in the hospitality sector. Finding that the Defendants were using deceptively similar marks and domain names, the Court issued an injunction restraining their continued use of these marks and directed them to remove all infringing materials within three days.

trademarkCM(M)-IPD 49/2025& CM 281/2025, CM 282/2025

Baldev RajvsBrothers Tobacco & Ors.

The Delhi High Court granted Baldev Raj limited permission to introduce registered trademark certificates into the ongoing passing off suit against Brothers Tobacco. This relief was contingent upon a strict clarification: the Petitioner could not use these documents to convert the cause of action from passing off to infringement. The court emphasized that since the Petitioner possessed these registration details prior to framing issues, they must adhere strictly to the original claim of passing off.

trademarkC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 88/2023

Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr.vsSandip @ Sandeep Yadav & Anr.

The Delhi High Court initiated trademark opposition proceedings where Petitioners, established users of a mark in the Plaster of Paris (POP) business since 2004, sought cancellation of a registered mark held by Respondent No. 1. The court allowed an initial application for exemption regarding document filing while setting out the procedural framework for the dispute. Notice was issued to the respondents, and the parties were directed to file detailed submissions before further hearings.

trademarkCS(COMM) 952/2025

Dominos Ip Holder Llc & AnrvsMr. Jaideep Singh Gusain & Ors

The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Dominos Ip Holder Llc, restraining certain online entities (Defendants 9 and 10) from using marks deceptively similar to 'Domino's Pizza'. Furthermore, the court directed major aggregators, Zomato and Swiggy, to immediately take down specific listings containing infringing variations. This order establishes a strong preliminary stance against trademark infringement in the digital marketplace, while simultaneously setting out procedural steps for the full trial.

trademarkW.P.(C)-IPD 6/2024 & CM 4/2024, CM 5/2024, CM 6/2024

Louis Vuitton MalletiervsThe Registrar Of Trade Marks

In this matter concerning a trademark opposition, Louis Vuitton Malletier sought relief after being unable to complete the payment for its notice of opposition due to a technical glitch with the payment gateway. The Delhi High Court acknowledged the petitioner's claim regarding the non-fault nature of the delay and took steps to ensure all parties were heard. Consequently, the applicant of the disputed mark was impleaded as Respondent No. 2, allowing the litigation to proceed fairly.

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