1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.

3. The present appeal is preferred challenging the order dated 12.08.2025, passed by the learned District Judge-12, Nagpur, on application at Exh.20 in Trademark Suit No.05 of 2024 whereby the present appellant/original defendant is restrained by way of temporary injunction from using trademark of the respondent/plaintiff with respect to trademark, “Online BIDI” till the final disposal of the suit. The parties will be hereinafter referred as “plaintiff” and “defendant”.

4. The plaintiff has filed a suit being Trademark Suit No.05 of 2024 against the defendant. The plaintiff’s case is that it is engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing, and selling handmade bidis and matchboxes since 2005. It is contended that, the plaintiff has registered its trademark and copyright under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Copyright Act, 1957. It is stated that the application for registration of trademark “Online BIDI” was made on 31.08.2017 and the same was registered on 04.01.2020 in class-34. The plaintiff has also stated

that the design of the label is an artistic work and that the same is registered by the Registrar of Copyrights on 13.06.2024. The plaintiff contends that the label/trade-dress of the Bidis has unique and distinguishing features which provide distinct identification to the product of the plaintiff. It is stated that, because of the blue colour theme of the trade-dress/packet/label, the bidis of the plaintiff are famous in the market and are commonly identified and referred as “Asmani Puda”. The plaintiff contends that the defendant is doing business of sale of Bidis under the brand name “ATM BIDI No.07”. The plaintiff states that the colour scheme of the packet and bundle of the defendant is deceptively similar with that of the plaintiff. It is contended that, the end consumer of the product are workers, labours and generally people from illiterate/uneducated strata of the society who are gullible and therefore, susceptible to being misled into buying the product of the defendant believing it to be product of the plaintiff.

5. The plaintiff also filed an application for grant of temporary injunction seeking order restraining the defendant from using the trademark during the pendency of the suit. The said application came to be marked as Exh.20.

6. The defendant filed written statement and reply opposing the suit and the application for grant of temporary injunction. The defendant contends that the two trademarks are not similar as contended by the plaintiff. The defendant stated that whereas the trade-name of the plaintiff is “Online BIDI”, the trade name of the defendant is “ATM BIDI No.07”. The defendant has pleaded that the design appears for trade-dress of the plaintiff and defendant does not bear any resemblance and that the apprehension expressed in the plaint and application for grant of temporary injunction is misconceived. The defendant also contends that it had altered its original design with a view to avoid any dispute, and that after the design was altered, there was no question of any customer being misled, since the designs are in no way similar. Apart from this, the defendant has raised a contention that the outer packet in which the cigarette bundles are packed and sold by the plaintiff does not carry statutory warning as per Rule 3(e) of the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “Cigarettes and Tobacco Rules, 2008”) in as much as the outer packaging in which the cigarettes bundle are sold does not have health warning as prescribed under the said

Rules. It will be pertinent to mention that the said Rules are framed in exercise of powers conferred by the Sections 7(1), 8(2), 10 and 31 of the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulations of Trade and Commerce