Allowed

Asian Paints Limited v. M. J. Industries

Bombay HC14 Jun 2016NMS/2095/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court confirmed an ad-interim order appointing a receiver and granted a final injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, marketing, or using marks deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark UTVSowana.

What did the court decide?

Final injunction restraining defendant from manufacturing, marketing, selling, or using marks identical or deceptively similar to plaintiff's trademark; confirmation of ad-interim receiver.

Asian Paints Limited Vs M. J. Industries — Intellectual Property | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

Asian Paints Ltd v M. J. Industries
901-NMSL828-16.DOC

¶2

SHEPHALI

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 828 OF 2016

¶4

IN

¶5

SUIT (L) NO. 203 OF 2016

¶6

Asian Paints Limited…Plaintiff

¶7

Versus

¶8

M. J. Industries

¶9

…Defendant

¶10

Mr. V. A. Bhagat, i/b G. S. Hegde & V. A. Bhagat, for the Plaintiff.

¶11

CORAM:G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:14th June 2016

¶12

PC:-

¶13

1.An ad-interim order was passed on 15th March 2016. At that
time, ad-interim reliefs in infringement were granted, there being a
pending Petition for leave under clause XIV of the Letters Patent.
The order appointed a Receiver in addition to the injunction.

¶14

2.The Defendant was then served. He appeared thereafter on
31st March 2016 when, inter alia, leave under Clause XIV of the
Letters Patent was granted. He also appeared on 16th April 2016
(before K. R. Shriram, J.)

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

14th June 2016

¶17

Asian Paints Ltd v M. J. Industries
901-NMSL828-16.DOC

¶18

3.The Defendant is absent today. There is no Affidavit in Reply.
The ad-interim order is confirmed.

¶19

4.In addition, there will be an order on the Notice of Motion in
terms of prayer clause (c), which reads as follows:

¶20

“(c)that pending the hearing and final disposal of the
suit, the Defendant by themselves, its
proprietor/partners, sister concerns/firms, heirs,
servants, agents, stockists, dealers, assignees and all
those connected with the Defendant in its business be
restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon’ble
Court from manufacturing, marketing, selling and/or
using in any manner whatsoever in relation to its acrylic
distemper, colours, paints or other like goods used in
the paint industry, the impugned mark SUKAN UTSAV or
any mark identical with and/or deceptively similar to the
Plaintiff’s distinctive and prior used trade mark UTSAV,
for such use thereof by the Defendant amounts to
passing off the Defendant’s business and goods as and
for those of the Plaintiff or in some way connected or
associated therewith;”

¶21

5.The Notice of Motion is disposed of in these terms, with no
order as to costs.

¶22

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶23

Page 2 of 2
14th June 2016

Asian Paints Limited v. M. J. Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asian Paints Limited v. M. J. Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs M/S. Arch Pharmalabs Limited

Parle Agro Private Limited Vs Bisleri International Private Limited

Parle Agro Private Limited Vs Bisleri International Private Limited

Nawman M.H. Malik Vs Essel Group and 2 Ors.

Mahendra Chunilal Patel Vs M/S. F S K Enterprises and and Ketan Shah

Mahendra Chunilal Patel Sole Prop of Patel Products Vs Sanket Food Products (P) Ltd.