Dismissed¶29

Tenet Poly Plast v. Apple Thermo Sanitation Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay HC10 Jun 2025IA/1673/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Return of plaint; Order VII Rule 10 CPC application dismissed; territorial jurisdiction objection (defendant resident/business at Palghar, Thane; Section 20(b) CPC) rejected; suit found to be for infringement of registered trade mark and copyright in addition to passing off; Section 134 Trade Marks Act jurisdiction sustained via plaintiff's business address; Clause XIV Letters Patent petition for combining causes of action noted; Commercial Division, Bombay High Court; Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.; decided July 24, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Though prayer clause (a) of the plaint seeks relief for passing off of goods, the pleadings read holistically show that the suit is for infringement of trade mark as well as passing off. ¶22

Tenet Poly Plast vs Apple Thermo Sanitation Pvt. Ltd. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the Defendant neither resides nor carries on business for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, and whether the cause of action would arise at Palghar, Thane, making Palghar the appropriate Court under Section 20(b) CPC and warranting return of the plaint. +1 more

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Though prayer clause (a) of the plaint seeks relief for passing off of goods, the pleadings read holistically show that the suit is for infringement of trade mark as well as passing off.

¶22

Key takeaways

The plaint contains sufficient averments, from paragraph 13 onwards, of deceptive similarity of the rival marks and trade dress, showing the Defendants infringe the Plaintiff's registered trade mark and copyright.ratio¶26
The filing of the Clause XIV petition under the Bombay Letters Patent is indicative that the Plaintiffs were aware of the statutory provisions and sought leave to combine the cause of action of passing off with that of infringement of trade mark and copyright.ratio¶27
The application under Order VII Rule 10 relies on selective pleadings and is unsustainable because the suit is clearly for infringement of trade mark and copyright; accordingly the Interim Application is dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim Application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC by defendant (applicant) seeking return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court at Palghar, Thane — dismissed by Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. (Commercial Division, Bombay HC) on July 24, 2025. Although prayer clause (a) of the plaint in Commercial IP Suit No. 162 of 2024 sought relief against passing off, a common-law remedy outside the Trade Marks Act, 1999 jurisdictional provisions, the Court held that the plaint read holistically pleads infringement of the registered trade mark and copyright alongside passing off (deceptive similarity of marks and trade dress pleaded from paragraph 13 onwards), and that the plaintiff's pending Clause XIV Letters Patent petition confirmed intent to combine causes of action. The application, founded on selective pleadings, was held unsustainable and dismissed; the plaint remains before this Court.

¶1

32-(a)-IA-1673-2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1673 OF 202 5 IN

¶5

COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 162 OF 2024

¶6

TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO

¶7

Digitally signed by TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO Date: 2025.07.29 12:00:11 +0530

¶8

Tenet Poly Plast … Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Apple Thermo Sanitation Pvt Ltd … Plaintiff Versus Tenet Poly Plast … Defendant

¶9

Mr. Vikrant Raje & Mr. Vinit Raje for Plaintiff. Mr. Hirent Kamod, Mr. Rahul Punjabi & Mr. Prem Khullar for the Defendant.

¶10

—————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : July 24, 2025.

¶11

P. C. :

¶12

1. Interim Application has been preferred under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court.

¶13

2. The Application is premised on the ground that the Defendant neither resides nor carries on business for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and the cause of action even if construed as per the pleadings in the plaint would arise in Palghar, Thane and under

¶14

Section 20(b) of CPC the appropriate Court would be Palghar.

¶15

3. Mr. Kamod, would submit that the suit has been filed by the

¶16

1 of 3

¶17

Shubham

¶18

32-(a)-IA-1673-2025.doc

¶19

Plaintiff seeking relief of injunction against passing off which is common law remedy and therefore the benefit of the jurisdictional provision of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 are not available to the Plaintiff.

¶20

4. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the RespondentOriginal Plaintiff would submit that the prayer clauses are not confined only in respect of relief of passing off but also seeks action for infringement of the registered mark. He would further submit that under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act this Court would have the jurisdiction as the suit can be instituted at the business address of the Plaintiff which is within the jurisdiction of this Court. He submits that in addition he has also filed an application under Clause XIV of Letters Patent for combining cause of action. He has taken this Court in detail through the pleadings in the plaint and would submit that the suit is for infringement of trade mark as well as copyright which would lie within the jurisdiction of this Court.

¶21

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

¶22

6. The prayer clause (a) of the plaint seeks relief in respect of passing off of the goods however the pleadings in the plaint when considered holistically would indicate that the pleadings are in respect of infringement of trade mark as well as passing off. Paragraph 1 of the plaint makes it clear that the Plaintiff is filing the suit against infringement of Plaintiff’s registered mark and passing off. In the plaint

¶23

2 of 3

¶24

Shubham

¶25

32-(a)-IA-1673-2025.doc

¶26

there are separate pleadings which are dedicated to the action for passing off and as regards the infringement of the trade mark. The Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded about the deceptive similarity of the rival marks as well as the trade dress to submit that the Defendant’s are infringing the registered trade mark as well as the copyright of the Plaintiff and that both the marks are phonetically, visually, and structurally identical. Necessary averments to that effect can be found from paragraph 13 onwards.

¶27

7. The pleadings in the plaint when read holistically would make it evident that the suit is for infringement of trade mark as well as passing off. The filing of the Clause-XIV Petition under Letters Patent (Bombay) is also indicative that the Plaintiffs are aware of the statutory provisions and have sought leave for combining cause of action of passing off with cause of action for infringement of trademark and copyright.

¶28

8. The Applicant has relied upon selective pleadings in order to file the present application under Order VII Rule 10 which is unsustainable as the suit is clearly for infringement of trade mark and copyright.

¶29

9. In light of the above, the Interim Application is dismissed.

¶30

[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

¶31

3 of 3

¶32

Shubham

Tenet Poly Plast v. Apple Thermo Sanitation Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tenet Poly Plast v. Apple Thermo Sanitation Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohun Nicholas Dsouza vs the Controllor of Petent of Design

Bimal Deepak Shah vs the Controller of Patents and Designs Anr.

Mr. Fredrick Fernandes (Deleted) and Ors. vs Mr.Ramkaran Shivram Yadav(Deleted)His LRS.1A.SMT.PARVATI Ramkaran Wd/O. Ramkaran S. Yadav and Ors.

Wacom Co., Ltd., vs the Registrar of Trade Marks

Phonographic Performance Limited vs Telangana Chamber of Events Industry Tcei

Empire Spices and Foods Limited vs Sanjay Bhimraoji Deshmukh