Ifra Sheikh, Trading as Rocket Bidi Works, Nagpur Thr. P.O.A Mohammad Yaqub S/O Ziamohammad Ishaque vs M/S Mobile Bidi Traders, Partnership Firm, Kamptee, Nagpur

The present revision application is filed challenging the order dated 12/08/2025 passed by the learned District Judge-12, Nagpur, rejecting the application for rejection of plaint filed by the present applicant in Trademark Suit No.5/2024. The non-applicant is the original plaintiff and the applicant is the original defendant. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant.

¶15

The plaintiff has filed the aforesaid suit, inter alia, contending that it is engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and sale of bidis since the year 2005 under the name and style of “Online BIDI”. It is the case of the plaintiff that it has a registered trademark and copyright for its trade dress. The contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant is selling bidis under the name and style of “ATM BIDI NO.07” under a deceptively similar trademark. The plaintiff has accordingly prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing and/or selling or displaying the trademark/label “ATM BIDI NO.07”.

¶16

18.cra.124.25

¶17

2 / 5

¶18

The plaintiff has also filed an application for grant of temporary injunction in the said suit, which is allowed by the learned trial Court. The said order is confirmed by this Court by dismissing the appeal preferred by the defendant, being Appeal Against Order No.19/2025. The application for review of the judgment dated 04/11/2025 passed in Appeal Against Order No.19/2025, being Civil Application (MCA) No.52/2026 is also dismissed.

¶19

The defendant has filed an application for rejection of the plaint in the aforesaid suit filed by the plaintiff vide Exh. 29. It is the case of the defendant that a perusal of the averments in the plaint, wherein images of the trade packet of the plaintiff are included, would demonstrate that the bidis are sold in breach of statutory provisions of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “COTPA” for the sake of brevity) and the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “Packaging Rules” for the sake of brevity), inasmuch as the statutory warnings as provided under Rule 3(e) of the Packaging Rules are not printed on the outer packet of the plaintiff’s products.

¶20

The said application vide Exh. 29 was rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 12/08/2025, predominantly on the ground that the plaint averments do not disclose that the suit is filed without a cause of action or that the same is barred by law. The learned trial Court has also observed that the defendant may invoke the provisions of the COTPA with respect to the alleged non-compliance with the provisions of the COTPA and the Packaging Rules by the plaintiff, however, such noncompliance with the said provisions would not be fatal to the maintainability of the suit.

¶21

18.cra.124.25

¶22

3 / 5

¶23

Heard Mr. Zia Quazi, learned Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Quazi contends that the pictorial image of the outer packet, in which the bidi bundles meant for sale are packed, does not disclose that the statutory warning is printed thereon, which is in breach of Rule 3(e) of the Packaging Rules. He further contends that the sale of tobacco products in breach of the provisions of the COTPA or the Packaging Rules is prohibited by Section 7 of the COTPA. The learned Advocate contends that the term ‘package’, as defined under Section 3(i) of the COTPA, is an inclusive definition which would also include the outer packet in which the bidi bundles are packed. The learned Advocate has raised an objection with respect to the maintainability of the suit on two grounds. Firstly, that since the plaintiff is offering products for sale in breach of the mandatory provisions of the COTPA and the Packaging Rules, the plaintiff has failed to disclose a cause of action and, secondly, that breach of the provisions of the COTPA and the Packaging Rules will operate as a bar to seek the reliefs sought in the suit. The learned Advocate contends that the COTPA is a special enactment vis-a-vis the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and, therefore, the provisions of the COTPA will override the provisions of the Trade Marks Act. As regards the cause of action, the learned Advocate elaborates the contention by arguing that a cause of action is a bundle of facts which, if unrebutted, would give the plaintiff right to seek appropriate relief from a Court of law. The learned Advocate contends that since the plaint indicates that the trade of bidis is not being conducted by the plaintiff in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions, even if the contention that the defendant is selling products with a deceptively similar mark is accepted, the plaintiff will not have the right to seek relief restraining the defendant from doing so and, as such, the plaint does not disclose a cause of action. The learned Advocate further contends that since there is non-compliance with the provisions of the COTPA and the Packaging Rules, the suit is also barred by law.

¶24

18.cra.124.25

¶25

4 / 5

¶26

It is true that Section 7 of the COTPA provides that any person engaged in the business of sale of tobacco products shall display statutory warnings, including a pictorial warning, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. I am in agreement with the contention that the term ‘package’, as defined under Section 3(i) of the COTPA, is an inclusive definition and, therefore, the outer packet in which the bidi bundles are packed would also be covered by the definition of the term ‘package’ under the Act. Having said so, it will be necessary to refer to Sections 14 and 15 of the COTPA.

¶27

Section 14 provides for confiscation of tobacco products in cases of contravention of the provisions of the said Act. Section 15 of the Act states that the Court, while adjudicating the issue of confiscation, may provide an option to the owner of the tobacco products to pay an amount equal to the value of the goods confiscated and release the same on the condition that the confiscated products shall not be offered for sale without displaying the statutory warnings and without incorporating other specifications as are required to be displayed on the package. Thus, the law provides for a corrective course to be adopted in cases where a tobacco product is not sold strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

¶28

In view of the aforesaid, the contention that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action on the ground that the plaintiff was offering the products for sale in breach of the provisions of the COTPA and the Packaging Rules cannot be accepted. The scheme of the Act provides for seeking release of the products confiscated on the ground of breach of the provisions of the Act and the Rules and for selling the same again after remedying the wrong/defect.

¶29

As regards the contention that the provisions of COTPA will override the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, the said contention is difficult to accept. Both the enactments operate in different fields.

¶30

18.cra.124.25

¶31

5 / 5

¶32

Whereas the provisions of the Trade Marks Act are designed to protect the trademark of an individual and also to protect the end consumer from being misled by any deceptively similar mark, the provisions of the COTPA and the Packaging Rules framed thereunder are intended to ensure that consumers of tobacco products are made aware of the health hazards arising from the use of tobacco products. The Act and the Rules are designed to discourage the public at large from the consumption of tobacco products. The objects of both enactments are different. Both the enactments operate in separate fields. Even otherwise, as stated above, any breach of the provisions of the COTPA and the Packaging Rules can be directed to be rectified.

¶33

In view of the reasons recorded above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the contention that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by law and/or that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action cannot be accepted. The Civil Revision Application is, therefore, rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

*sandesh

¶35

Signed by: Mr. Sandesh Waghmare Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 12/02/2026 12:23:50

Ifra Sheikh, Trading as Rocket Bidi Works, Nagpur Thr. P.O.A Mohammad Yaqub S/O Ziamohammad Ishaque v. M/S Mobile Bidi Traders, Partnership Firm, Kamptee, Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ifra Sheikh, Trading as Rocket Bidi Works, Nagpur Thr. P.O.A Mohammad Yaqub S/O Ziamohammad Ishaque v. M/S Mobile Bidi Traders, Partnership Firm, Kamptee, Nagpur

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

Purushottam S/O Govindrao Dahakar (Dead) Thr His Lrs. vs Jagdish Nagorao Movade (Described Himself as Adopted S/O Ghanshyam Jivtode) and Others

Asha W/O Arvind Henry Thr. P. O. a. Holder Mrs. Shivalini. a. Misal vs Smt. Komal Wd/O Govindram Tilwani and Others

Gajanan S/O Bhaurao Bhandare vs Ratnabai W/O Manoharrao Kamade and Other

Meerabai Punjaji Shimbre vs Baburao Pandhari Diwane

Central India Madhyawarti Bahuudeshiya Shakari Sanstha Ltd, Nagpur Thr. Secretary Rajeev Hadap vs Gramin Vikas Kukkut Palan Shakari Sanstha Ltd, Pachgaon, Nagpur Thr. Secretary Dr. Gulabrao Bhoyar

Ujwala Wd/O Pramod Wankhede and Another vs Ashok S/O Dinesh Mishra and Others