Short Summary
Unilever Plc. filed a suit alleging that Had Enterprises was violating its trademarks (LAKME, LAKME EYECONIC, etc.) by selling products using deceptive marks and logos. The court addressed motions related to the investigation of these IP violations.
Detailed Summary
In the fiercely competitive world of beauty and cosmetics, a brand name is more than just a label—it's decades of trust, marketing muscle, and consumer loyalty. When that identity is copied, the damage isn't just financial; it strikes at the very heart of a company's reputation. This case between a global consumer goods giant and a smaller enterprise serves as a powerful reminder that trademark protection is not optional—it's existential.
Unilever Plc., a multinational consumer goods powerhouse, found itself in a legal showdown with Had Enterprises over allegations of trademark infringement. At the center of the dispute were some of Unilever's well-known beauty trademarks, including LAKME and LAKME EYECONIC. Unilever claimed that Had Enterprises was using deceptive marks and logos on its products, creating a confusing similarity that misled consumers. The matter reached the court on 10 December 2018, where Unilever sought urgent intervention to stop what it described as ongoing violations of its intellectual property rights.
Unilever argued that Had Enterprises was engaging in both infringement and passing off by adopting marks and visual elements that closely mirrored its established LAKME trademarks. The core of Unilever's grievance was that consumers could easily be deceived into believing they were purchasing genuine Unilever products when they were actually buying from the defendant. The court was asked to address motions related to the investigation of these alleged IP violations, with Unilever pushing for immediate relief to halt the alleged misuse of its distinctive brand identifiers. The legal friction centered on whether the defendant's marks were sufficiently similar to cause consumer confusion and dilute the distinctiveness of Unilever's established trademarks.
The court ruled in favor of Unilever, granting temporary injunctions against Had Enterprises. These interim orders were issued pending the final disposal of the suit, effectively putting a stop—however temporary—to the alleged passing off and infringement activities. The court's decision underscored the importance of protecting distinctive trademarks from deceptive imitation, recognizing that allowing such practices to continue could cause irreparable harm to the trademark owner's brand equity and consumer trust. The injunction served as an immediate shield while the full case proceeded toward resolution.
For founders and brand builders, this case delivers a clear message: distinctive trademarks are valuable business assets that demand vigilant protection. If you discover a competitor using marks or logos that mirror your brand, don't wait—act swiftly through legal channels to secure interim relief. Equally important, invest in building distinctive, well-documented brand identities from day one, because the stronger and more recognizable your trademark, the stronger your case when you need to defend it. Brand protection isn't just a legal formality; it's a frontline business strategy.
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 HAD Enterprises 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.