Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ARIF S. DOCTOR J.
Asian Paints Limited - Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Manju Rani Jindal And Ors. – Respondent
COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 271 OF 2015
Decided On : 20-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff seeks injunction for tm infringement and passing off. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. interim injunctions granted; suit uncontested by defendants. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. asian paints and asian marks well-known with prior use. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. super asian plus deceptively similar; malafide adoption. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. evidence and precedents prove infringement and passing off. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. realistic costs mandated in commercial suits for conduct. (Para 17) |
| 7. dominant asian feature causes deceptive similarity; infringement held. (Para 18) |
| 8. suit decreed with injunction and costs awarded. (Para 19) |
JUDGMENT :
ARIF S. DOCTOR J.
1. The present Suit seeks the following substantive reliefs:
a. "that the Defendants, by themselves, their proprietor, heirs, servants, agents, stockists, dealers, assignees and all those connected with them in their business be restrained by a perpetual order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from manufacturing, marketing, selling and/or likely to market and sell and/or using in any manner whatsoever in relation to their wall putty, cement paints and other like goods used in the paint industry, the impugned mark SUPER ASIAN PLUS or any mark/s identical with and/or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's trade marks ASIAN PAINTS and ASIAN, for such use thereof by the Defendants amount to infringement of the Plaintiff's trade marks ASIAN PAINTS registered under Nos. 904238, 904237, 1154822, 1154823, 1154824, 1154825, 1154827, 1154828, 1154830, 1154831, 1154832, 1154834, 1154835, 1154836, 1154837, 1154838, 1994707, 1994709 and the Plaintiff's trade mark ASIAN registered under Nos. 965439, 965441 and 1154821, all in class 02;
b. that the Defendants by themselves, their proprietor, heirs, servants, agents, stockists, dealers, assignees and all those connected with them in their business be restrained by a perpetual order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from manufacturing, marketing, selling and/or likely to market and sell and/or using in any manner whatsoever in relation to their wall putty, cement paints and other like goods used in the paint industry, the impugned mark SUPER ASIAN PLUS or any mark/s identical with and/or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's distinctive and prior used trade marks ASIAN PAINTS and ASIAN for such use thereof by the Defendants amount to passing off the Defendant's goods and business as and for those of the Plaintiff or in some way connected or associated therewith;
c. that the Defendants be ordered and decreed to deliver-up to the Plaintiff for destruction all such materials including wall putty, cement paints and other like goods used in the paint industry. gunny bags, poly bags, pouches, labels, stickers, advertising and packing materials, stationery, dyes, screens, blocks, moulds stencils, papers, vouchers, bill books, carry bags, and other goods bearing the impugned mark SUPER ASIAN PLUS as complained off;
d. that the Defendant be ordered and decreed to pay to the Plaintiff, a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- by way of damages together with interest at the rate of 21 % per annum from the date of filing of the suit till payment or in the alternative the Defendants be ordered and decreed to render a true and faithful account of all the profits earned by the Defendants by using the impugned mark SUPER ASIAN PLUS and the Defendants be further ordered and decreed to pay to the Plaintiff such amount as may be found due on such account being taken”
2. The Plaintiff is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and is the registered proprietor of the trade marks ASIAN PAINTS and ASIAN (“the Plaintiff’s registered trade marks”)
3. The Defendants are using the mark SUPER ASIAN PLUS (“the impugned mark”), which is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s registered trade marks in relation to the very same goods that are manufactured and sold by the Plaintiff, i.e., wall putty, cement paint, paints and other goods like those of the Plaintif
Deceptively similar mark with identical dominant feature infringes registered trademarks on identical goods; prior extensive use establishes passing off; commercial suits warrant compensatory costs f....
Use of registered trade mark as part of trade name/house mark constitutes infringement under Sec 29(5) TM Act; deceptive similarity strictly assessed in pharmaceuticals; export application deemed dom....
The court confirmed that the use of a deceitfully similar trademark ZEROVOL-P infringes the registered trademark ZERODOL, establishing liability for passing off.
Registered trademark owners are entitled to prevent unauthorized use that is likely to confuse consumers, establishing a right to seek injunction and damages for infringement and passing off.
The court established that the rights of the prior user of a trademark are superior to those of a subsequent user, emphasizing the elements of goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage in passing off c....
In trademark law, the likelihood of confusion rather than actual confusion is sufficient to grant injunctive relief, especially when the Plaintiff has established prior use and goodwill.
The Court ruled that the Plaintiff's registered marks were infringed by the Defendant's use of a similar mark, establishing likelihood of confusion and passing off under trade mark law.
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
