Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Arif S. Doctor, J.
Petrofer Chemie H.R. Fischer GMBH & Co. KG. - Applicants
Versus
United Petrofer Limited - Defendant
Interim Application No. 2143 of 2021 Commercial IP Suit No. 275 of 2021
Decided On : 06-11-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiffs seek injunction for trademark protection. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. plaintiffs assert established goodwill in petrofer. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 3. defendant’s use of petrofer is dishonest. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 4. defendant's actions cause likelihood of confusion. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 5. defendants argue goods are distinct; raise section 29(5). (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 6. defendant claims no infringement; relies on acquiescence. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 7. defendant denies meeting; alleges misleading actions. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 8. plaintiffs rebut acquisition arguments; maintain rights. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 9. court finds substantial errors in defendants' claims. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58) |
| 10. court grants interim injunction for trademark protection. (Para 59) |
| 11. order issued to halt defendant's trademark infringement. (Para 60) |
JUDGMENT :
Arif S. Doctor, J.
1. The Applicants/Plaintiffs have, by way of the captioned Interim Application, sought the following reliefs:
“(a) that pending hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Defendant by itself, its directors, employees, servants, agents, dealers, stockists, distributors, licensees and all persons claiming under it be restrained by an order and temporary injunction of this Hon'ble Court from infringing the Plaintiffs registered trade mark PETROFER bearing the registration numbers as more particularly stated in Exhibit "E" to the Plaint by using the impugned trade mark "UNITED PETROFER", the impugned corporate name "UNITED PETROFER LIMITED" and the impugned website/ domain name www.unitedpetrofer.com and/or any other trade mark, corporate name and website/ domain name containing the word PETROFER and/or any other word deceptively similar thereto and/or any other trade mark, corporate name and website/ domain name identical with or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs' registered trade mark PETROFER bearing the registration numbers as more particularly stated in Exhibit "E" to the Plaint upon and in relation to the goods in respect of which the Plaintiffs have secured the aforesaid registrations and/or the like goods or in any other manner whatsoever;
(b) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Defendant by itself, its directors, employees, servants, agents, dealers, stockists, distributors, licensees and all persons claiming under it be restrained by an order and temporary injunction of this Hon'ble Court from infringing the Plaintiffs' registered trade mark PETROFER bearing the registration numbers as more particularly stated in Exhibit "E" to the Plaint by using the word "PETROFER" as its corporate name or part of its corporate name dealing in the goods in respect of which the Plaintiffs have secured the aforesaid registrations or in any other manner whatsoever;
(c) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Defendant by itself, its directors, employees, servants, agents, dealers, stockists, distributors, licensees and all persons claiming under it be restrained by an order and temporary injunction of this Hon'ble Court from manufacturing and/or marketing and/or supplying and/or selling and/or advertising and/ or trading in and/or exporting and/or otherwise dealing in industrial lubricants, additives, grease, industrial oils, chemicals and/or similar goods under the impugned trade mark "UNITED PETROFER", the impugned corporate name "UNITED PETROFER LIMITED", and the impugned website/ domain name www.unitedpetrofer.com and/or any other trade mark, corporate name and website/domain name containing the word "PETROFER" and/or any other word deceptively similar thereto and/or any other trade mark, corporate name and website/ domain name deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs' said well-known trade mark/ name "PETROFER" so as to pass off or enable others to pass off the Defendant's impugned goods/ business as and for the said well-known goods /business of
Trademark infringement occurs when a mark is used in a business name that is likely to confuse consumers regarding the source of goods, especially when the products are similar.
The court held that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case of infringement and granted an ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark NOVAEGIS or [IMG] in any form or m....
The principle of prior user of a trademark prevails over subsequent registrations, especially when confusion or association is likely between goods and services of similar trade sectors.
Important Point :The use of a trademark that is phonetically and visually similar to a registered trademark can lead to confusion, constituting infringement, especially when dishonest conduct is evid....
Registered trademark owners can seek injunctions against unauthorized use by others despite claims of prior use unless evidence of assignment and continuous goodwill is sufficiently established.
Trademark infringement occurs when a defendant uses a well-known mark in bad faith, causing confusion, irrespective of the addition of non-distinctive terms. The plaintiff is entitled to injunction b....
The court found that despite phonetic similarity, the distinctiveness of trade marks and differences in intended consumer bases negate the likelihood of confusion and passing off.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
