Asian Paints Limited vs a N Steels — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Asian Paints Limited vs a N Steels — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Suit decreed on admission for the Plaintiff in terms of prayer clauses (a)-(d): (a) perpetual injunction against manufacturing, marketing, distributing, stocking, selling, offering for sale or using the counterfeit marks ASIAN PAINTS, the boy-holding-brush device, APCOLITE GLOSS premium enamel and TRUCARE wood primer on money/piggy-bank empty metal tins; (b) perpetual injunction against the pirated artworks/labels infringing the Plaintiff's copyrights in the Device of GATTU label (A-51167/91 dated 27.08.1991), APCOLITE premium enamel label (A-118156/2017 dated 05.07.2017) and TRUCARE wood primer label (A-127253/2018 dated 26.10.2018); (c) perpetual injunction against passing off through identical/deceptively similar marks and trade dress; (d) delivery up to the Plaintiff for destruction of all infringing tins, lids, labels, cartons, blocks, moulds, stencils, rollers, cylinders, machinery and packing material. Consent-term statements accepted as undertakings to the Court; decree to be drawn up; refund of Court Fees as per Rules; Court Receiver discharged without passing off accounts with its costs, charges and expenses payable by the Plaintiff within 7 days of demand; interim applications disposed as not surviving.

Issue for consideration

Whether, on settlement of the suit and acceptance of the consent terms, the suit should be decreed on admission in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the plaint. +2 more

Court's answer

The suit, having been settled between the parties, is decreed on admission in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the plaint.

Ratio / Principle

The statements made in the consent terms are accepted as undertakings given to the Court.

Key takeaways

Defendant No.1's proprietor informed the Court that he had taken legal advice on the consent terms, found them acceptable, reiterated them in Court, and submitted that they were voluntarily executed by him.ratio¶3
The consent terms are signed by the proprietor of Defendant No.1, the constituted attorney of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff's Advocate; Defendant No.1 was present in Court and verified from his Aadhar Card.ratio¶3
By prayer clause (a), perpetual injunction granted restraining the Defendants and all connected with them from manufacturing, marketing, distributing, stocking, selling, offering for sale and/or using, on their money/piggy banks (empty metal tins) and like goods, the impugned counterfeit marks ASIAN PAINTS, the device of a boy holding a brush, APCOLITE GLOSS premium enamel and TRUCARE wood primer, infringing the Plaintiffs registered trade marks.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Commercial Division), Commercial IP Suit No. 353 of 2024 — Asian Paints Limited v. A N Steels and Anr. (neutral citation 2025:BHC-OS:10286; Coram: Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.; decided July 07, 2025). Suit alleging counterfeiting of the ASIAN PAINTS, GATTU-device, APCOLITE GLOSS premium enamel and TRUCARE wood primer marks and piracy of registered label artwork on money/piggy-bank empty metal tins was settled between the parties. Consent terms, signed by the proprietor of Defendant No.1 (the proprietary concern of Mohd. Farook Sharif Galiyara), the Plaintiff's constituted attorney and the Plaintiff's Advocate, were taken on record (marked 'X'); Defendant No.1 was present in Court, verified from his Aadhar Card, confirmed he had taken legal advice, and submitted the terms were voluntarily executed; his statements were accepted as undertakings to the Court. The suit was decreed on admission in terms of prayer clauses (a)-(d): perpetual injunctions against manufacturing/marketing/stocking/selling/offering for sale or using the impugned counterfeit marks and pirated artworks on money/piggy-bank tins (infringing the Plaintiffs registered trade marks in classes covering ASIAN PAINTS, GATTU, APCOLITE, APCOLITE GLOSS and TRUCARE, and the copyrights in registered labels A-51167/91, A-118156/2017 and A-127253/2018); restraint against passing off via identical/deceptively similar marks and trade dress; and delivery up to the Plaintiff, for destruction, of all infringing goods and materials (tins, lids, labels, cartons, blocks, moulds, stencils, rollers, cylinders, machinery, packing material). Consequential directions: decree to be drawn up; refund of Court Fees as per Rules; Court Receiver's Report disposed of and Receiver discharged without passing off accounts, its costs/charges/expenses payable by the Plaintiff within 7 days of demand; interim applications disposed as not surviving. No contested issues were adjudicated; no statute or precedent is cited by name in the judgment.