Saint-Gobain India Private Limited vs Gypstone Building Products Pvt. Ltd. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Saint-Gobain India Private Limited vs Gypstone Building Products Pvt. Ltd. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim Application allowed: interim relief granted in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) — Defendants restrained, pending hearing and final disposal of the Suit, from using the mark GYPSTONE and/or any identical or deceptively similar mark to the Plaintiff's registered trade mark GYPTONE (Regn. No. 1554053) so as to infringe or pass off; Court Receiver discharged without passing of accounts, with costs, charges and expenses payable by the Plaintiff within eight days on demand.

Issue for consideration

Whether interim relief should be granted in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), restraining the Defendants, pending hearing and final disposal of the Suit, from using the mark GYPSTONE and/or any identical or deceptively similar mark to the Plaintiff's registered trade mark GYPTONE (Regn. No. 1554053) so as to infringe the registered trade mark and/or to pass off their products as those of the Plaintiff. +1 more

Court's answer

The prima facie findings arrived at by the order dated 5th October 2023 — the proprietary right of the Plaintiff in the trade mark GYPTONE, the goodwill and reputation acquired in the registered trade mark, and the deceptive similarity between the rival marks (mere addition of alphabet 'S' not sufficient to lend distinctiveness) — have not been displaced.

Ratio / Principle

Prima facie, the Defendant designed the mark so as to pass off its goods as those of the Plaintiff, with an obvious intent of unjust enrichment at the cost of the Plaintiff's goodwill and reputation; a prima facie case for passing-off has been made out.

Key takeaways

This is a fit case for grant of interim relief in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b): the Defendants are restrained, pending hearing and final disposal of the Suit, from using the mark GYPSTONE and/or any identical or deceptively similar mark to the Plaintiff's registered trade mark GYPTONE under Registration No. 1554053, so as to infringe the same or to pass off their products as those of the Plaintiff.ratio¶32
The Court Receiver's Report is disposed of and the Court Receiver is discharged without passing of accounts; all costs, charges and expenses of the Court Receiver are to be paid by the Plaintiff within a period of eight days on demand being raised by the Court Receiver.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Trade mark infringement and passing-off — Interim Application — rival marks 'GYPTONE' vs. 'GYPSTONE' — by order dated 5th October 2023 the Court had recorded prima facie findings of the Plaintiff's proprietary right in the registered trade mark GYPTONE (Regn. No. 1554053), acquired goodwill and reputation, and deceptive similarity between the rival marks, holding that the mere addition of alphabet 'S' was not sufficient to lend distinctiveness to the impugned mark; notice was issued to the Defendant and the Court Receiver appointed to execute a commission, as proceedings were then pending before the Trade Marks Registry — Defendant filed no reply despite service — Defendant subsequently withdrew all pending trade mark applications for the word mark and device mark 'GYPSTONE' and communicated that it had not used the mark for over 10 years except in its company name, which it intended to change in the records of the Registrar of Companies — by order dated 13th November 2025 leave was granted to combine the cause of action of passing-off with infringement — the prima facie findings of 5th October 2023 not having been displaced, and the Defendant's use of the mark evidencing an obvious intent of unjust enrichment, a prima facie case for passing-off was made out — interim relief granted in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), restraining the Defendants pending hearing and final disposal of the Suit from using GYPSTONE or any identical/deceptively similar mark to GYPTONE so as to infringe or pass off — Court Receiver discharged without passing of accounts, with all costs, charges and expenses of the Court Receiver to be paid by the Plaintiff within eight days on demand. (Coram: Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.; decision dated 4 February 2026.)

7 IA-1570-2025.doc

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

IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1570 OF 2025 IN

COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 242 OF 2025

Saint-Gobain India Private Limited ...Applicant/Plaintiff

Versus

Gypstone Building Products Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

Mr. Hiren Kamod, Mr. Rohan Lopes, Mr. Karan Khiani i/b Ms. Rashmi Singh for Plaintiffs.

S. S. Chipkar, Master (Adm.), Court Receiver present.

——————

CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 4, 2026

P. C. :

1. Interim Application is preferred in the action for infringement of

trade mark and passing-off. The rival marks are “GYPTONE” vs. “GYPSTONE”.

2. Mr. Kamod, learned counsel appearing for Plaintiffwould submit that vide order of 5^th October, 2023, as the proceedings were pending before the Trade Marks registry at that point of time, this Court though arrived at prima facie finding of infringement of trade mark and passing-off thought it fit to give notice to the Defendant before

1 of 4

Sairaj

7 IA-1570-2025.doc

considering relief as sought and granted relief of appointment of the Court Receiver for executing commission. He submits that subsequently, the commission was executed and Court Receiver’s Report is taken on record. He submits that though initially the Defendant had approached for settlement, the settlement talks could not fructify which led to passing of order of 13^th November, 2025 allowing the Leave Petition.

3. He would further submit that in the meantime, the Defendant has withdrawn all its pending trade mark applications for seeking registration of the word mark and the device mark of “GYPSTONE”. He has tendered the application before the trade mark registry which shows the status as withdrawn. He would further tender the communication received from the Advocate for the Defendant stating that Defendant is not using the concerned mark “GYPSTONE” since more than 10 years except using in the company name, which also they intend to change in the records of the Registrar of Companies and had sought time to carry out the said change. The communications are tendered and are taken on record.

4. Vide order dated 5^th October, 2023, this Court came to a prima facie finding of the proprietary right of the Plaintiff in the trade mark “GYPTONE” and also the Plaintiff has acquired goodwill and reputation in the registered trade mark. This Court further came to prima facie

2 of 4

Sairaj

7 IA-1570-2025.doc

finding of the deceptive similarity between the rival marks and that the mere addition of alphabet “S” was not sufficient to lend any distinctiveness to the impugned mark. As the parties were involved in proceedings before the Trade Marks Registry at that stage, the Court issued notice to the Defendant and granted the relief of appointment of Court Receiver. There is no reply filed by the Defendant despite being served with the copy of the proceedings. Prima facie findings arrived at by the order of 5^th October, 2023 have not been displaced.

5. By order dated 13^th November, 2025, leave was granted for combining the cause of action of passing-off with infringement of trade mark. The rival marks are “GYPTONE vs. GYPSTONE”, which are deceptively similar. The impugned mark is used in respect of identical product. The Plaintiff’s registered trade mark has acquired reputation and goodwill which has been recognized by this Court in the order of 5^th October, 2023. The manner in which the mark has been used makes it evident that the Defendant has attempted to come as close as possible to the Plaintiff’s mark with an obvious intent of unjust enrichment at the cost of the Plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation. Prima facie, the Defendant has designed the mark in the manner so as to pass-off its goods as that of the Plaintiff’s. Prima facie case has been made out for passing-off.

6. As the prima facie findings have been already been arrived at by

3 of 4

Sairaj

7 IA-1570-2025.doc

order of 5^th October, 2023, this is a fit case for grant of interim relief in

terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), which reads as under:

“(a) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the Suit, the Defendants by themselves, their servants and agents, be restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from using, in any manner whatsoever, upon and in relation to

its business, the mark GYPSTONE/ and/or any mark identical with or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs registered trade mark GYPTONE under Registration No. 1554053 so as to infringe the same;

(b) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the Suit, the Defendants by themselves, their servants and agents, be restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from using in any manner whatsoever, upon and in relation to its business/products, the marks GYPSTONE/

and/or any other marks/labels identical to or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs trade mark GYPTONE in any manner so as to pass off or enable others to pass off their products/services as that of Plaintiff or in some manner connected with Plaintiff.”

7. The Court Receiver’s Report is disposed of. Court Receiver is

discharged without passing of accounts. All costs, charges and expenses of the Court Receiver to be paid by the Plaintiff within period of eight days on demand being raised by Court Receiver.

[SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]

4 of 4

Sairaj