##PAGE1##

2026:BHC-O S:19755 CNR No : HCBM020124252026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Digitally signed by PRACHI ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PRACHI PRANESH P N R A A N N D E IW SH ADEKAR NANDIWADEKAR IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION Date: 2026.09.05

11:31:15 +0530 INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.12425 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 11510 OF 2026 Energy Beverages Pvt. Ltd. …Applicant/ Plaintiff V/s.

Sabran Enterprises & Ors. ….Defendants ______________________

Mr. Atmaram Patade a/w Mr. Shraddha Patil, Mr. Rahul R. Dubey and Ms. Ayesha Ahmed for the Applicant/Plaintiff.

______________________

CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATED : 3 SEPTEMBER 2026 P. C. :-

1. Heard Mr. Patade, learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff/Applicant.

2. A learned Single Judge by an order dated 28 April 2026 has already granted ex parte ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clauses (a), (c), (d) and (e). The said order dated 28 April 2026 reads as under :-

“

1. This is an action for infringement of trade mark, copyright and passing-off.

2. Mr. Patade would seek to move without notice for reasons which are set out in paragraph nos. 61 and 62 of the plaint. I am convinced that the object of grant of injunction would be defeated by delay for the reasons set out in paragraph nos. 61 and 62 of the plaint. At this stage, Mr. Patade would confine his relief only in respect of infringement of copyright as leave under clause XIV of Letters Patent (Bombay) has not yet been obtained.

3. He submits that the Plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of packaged drinking water. He submits that the Plaintiff secured registration of the device mark and word of “CLEAR” and points out the registration certificates on record. He submits that the artwork of “CLEAR” label mark was designed in-house and Plaintiff is the owner of the copyright. He points out the copyright registration obtained by the Plaintiff. He would further submit that the Plaintiff's product is marketed in unique and distinctive bottle and the Plaintiff has obtained registration in respect of shape of the bottle. He submits that on 13th March, 2026, the Plaintiff's investigator came across the impugned product bearing the infringing mark depicted in pirated artwork. He submits that the Plaintiff conducted a search in the Trade Marks Registry which disclosed that an application has been filed for registration of device mark of “CLEAR AQUA IND” by some third-party and not by the Defendants. He submits that the application is on proposed to be used basis and still not advertised. He submits that Defendants are marketing an identical product in pirated artwork which is required to be restrained. He submits that the intent appears to be to encash upon goodwill and reputation earned by the Plaintiff in respect of its registered trademark.

4. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

5. The rival products were produced physically for comparison of this Court and are reproduced hereinbelow for comparison:

6.Prima facie upon perusal of rival products, it is evident that the impugned products are counterfeit products. The Defendants have suffixed the word “AQUA IND” to Plaintiff's mark which words are depicted in negligible font and prominence is given to the word “CLEAR”. The impugned product is marketed in identical bottle shape, in which the Plaintiff holds registration. The impugned mark is depicted in identical label mark in identical colour scheme with identical placement of features and is likely to cause confusion. The Plaintiff's subsisting right in the wordmark/label mark/artwork/bottle shape is prima facie demonstrated from the registrations which have been placed on record. Prima facie comparison of the rival products would indicate violation of the Plaintiff's statutory rights which is required to be restrained. There are sufficient disclosures insofar as Defendants are concerned. The Defendants have not secured registrat