Defying the Injunction: Bombay High Court Cracks Down on Persistent Copyright Infringement

In a stern message to repeat offenders, the Bombay High Court has issued a fresh set of directions against R. V. Pharmaceuticals for the alleged violation of a long-standing copyright injunction. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arif S. Doctor, presiding over the Commercial Division, has ordered a search-and-seizure operation after finding the defendant in prima facie breach of previous court orders.

A Long-Standing Legal Battle

The dispute originated in 2017 when Dr. Ashok M. Bhat, the proprietor of the "NOVA" brand, filed a suit alleging that R. V. Pharmaceuticals was infringing upon his registered copyright and trade dress. The Plaintiff asserted that the defendants were marketing skin and hair creams using packaging that was deceptively similar to his protected artistic work.

The Court had granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction on January 19, 2017, restraining the defendants from using the impugned label and eventually appointed a Court Receiver to take charge of the infringing inventory at that time. While the notice of motion was made absolute in 2021, legal friction remained.

The Allegation: A 2024 Resurgence

Despite the judicial intervention, fresh allegations arose in 2025. Counsel for the Plaintiff, Mr. Vinod Bhagat, informed the Court that the defendants had allegedly resumed the manufacturing and marketing of goods under the impugned mark.

Evidence submitted to the court included a comparative chart of labels. The Plaintiff’s "NOVA" label was set against the original infringing design and a new "impugned label" which, according to the Plaintiff, continues to replicate the artistic elements of the original work, complete with recent 2024 manufacturing dates.

Court’s Intervention and Reasoning

During the proceedings on November 11, 2025, the Court took a dim view of the defendant's non-appearance, despite being served with the application. Justice Arif S. Doctor, noting the evidence of continued manufacturing, concluded that the defendant’s actions constituted a clear disregard for the authority of the court.

> "Having heard Mr. Bhagat and being satisfied that the Defendant, though served, are not present today, I am of the view that the Defendant is plainly in prima facie breach of the orders passed by this Court."

Expanding the Scope of Enforcement

The Court’s latest order is sweeping, granting the Plaintiff’s request to: * Enforce full compliance with the 2017 and 2021 injunctions. * Appoint a Court Receiver with extensive powers to search and seize infringing materials, including machinery, printing materials, and master plates, from the defendant's premises. * Authorize the use of local police assistance where necessary to gain entry. * Mandate the personal presence of Respondent No. 2 at future hearings to ensure accountability.

Looking Ahead

This ruling serves as a critical reminder of the consequences of ignoring judicial injunctions in commercial disputes. By allowing the seizure of production machinery and master plates, the Bombay High Court has signaled that it will not tolerate the “copycat” industry’s ability to bypass legal orders by simply resuming operations at a later date. The matter is currently scheduled for further hearing on December 9, 2025, where the Court will likely review the report of the Court Receiver regarding the latest seizure operation.

---

Key Observations

• On the Breach: "Having heard Mr. Bhagat and being satisfied that the Defendant, though served, are not present today, I am of the view that the Defendant is plainly in prima facie breach of the orders passed by this Court."
• On Enforcement: "The Court Receiver... [shall] attend and search the premises... where the goods... bearing the impugned label mark... are found, stocked, sealed or are lying."
• On Accountability: "[The Court] ordered and directed to deliver up all of the aforesaid to the Court Receiver... and the Court Receiver must carry out such search and seizure with local police assistance, if necessary."