Allowed¶31

Bisleri International Private Limited v. Drink Well India

Bombay HC9 Mar 2026IA/838/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd. v. Drink Well India and Anr.; Bombay High Court Commercial Division; confirmation of ad-interim relief dated 5 January 2026 in Commercial IP Suit No. 723 of 2025; trademark and copyright infringement; deceptive similarity of label mark; pirated art work; goodwill and reputation; prima facie case for prayer clauses (c) and (d); interim relief allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (d); Leave Petition under Clause XIV Letters Patent (Bombay) allowed; ex parte confirmation, defendants served but absent.

What did the court decide?

Ad-interim relief granted on 5 January 2026 confirmed as interim relief; Interim Application allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (d); Leave Petition No. 239 of 2025 allowed. ¶31

Bisleri International Private Limited vs Drink Well India — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Ad-interim relief granted on 5 January 2026 confirmed as interim relief; Interim Application allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (d); Leave Petition No. 239 of 2025 allowed.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the ad-interim relief granted on 5 January 2026 should be confirmed as interim relief. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

The ad-interim relief granted on 5th January, 2026 is confirmed as interim relief and the Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (d).

¶31

Ratio / Principle

The Plaintiff's proprietary right in the registered trademark and art work is prima facie evidenced by the registration certificate on record.

¶25

Key takeaways

Deceptive similarity of the impugned products indicates misrepresentation and a likelihood of injury to the Plaintiff which is required to be restrained.ratio¶29
A prima facie case has been made out for grant of interim relief in terms of prayer clauses (c) and (d).ratio¶29
Despite service, none appeared for the Defendants, indicating no available defence, and there was no reason why the ad-interim relief granted on 5th January, 2026 should not be confirmed.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Commercial Division (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. — Interim Application No. 838 of 2026 in Commercial IP Suit No. 723 of 2025 (Bisleri International Private Limited v. Drink Well India and Anr.) with Leave Petition No. 239 of 2025. The Leave Petition was allowed since the proceedings arise out of the same set of transactions, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, none appearing for the Defendant though served. By order of 5 January 2026 the Court had granted ad-interim relief in respect of trademark and copyright infringement in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (e), appointed a Court Receiver, and recorded a prima facie finding that the impugned label mark is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered trademark and depicted in pirated art work. Finding the Plaintiff's proprietary right prima facie evidenced by the registration certificate, deceptive similarity indicative of misrepresentation carrying a likelihood of injury, and the Defendants' non-appearance despite service indicative of no available defence, the Court held a prima facie case was made out for interim relief in terms of prayer clauses (c) and (d), confirmed the ad-interim relief as interim relief and allowed the Interim Application in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (d).

¶1

86-IA-838-2026.doc

¶2

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

¶3

IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 838 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 723 OF 2025 WITH LEAVE PETITION NO. 239 OF 2025

¶5

Bisleri International Private Limited ...Applicant/ Plaintiff

¶6

Versus

¶7

Drink Well India And Anr.

¶8

...Defendants

¶9

Ms. Twisha Singh i/b Mr. Vinod Bhagat, for the Plaintiff.

¶10

——————

¶11

CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : April 27, 2026

¶12

P. C. :

¶13

LEAVE PETITION NO. 239 OF 2025

¶14

1. None appears on behalf of the Defendant, though served. As the

¶15

proceedings arise out of the same set of transactions, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, Leave Petition is allowed.

¶16

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 838 OF 2026

¶17

2. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that on 5^th January,

¶18

2026, this Court had granted ad-interim relief in respect of infringement of trademark and copyright. She submits that as leave

¶19

¶20

Arya

¶21

86-IA-838-2026.doc

¶22

under Clause XIV of Letters Patent (Bombay) has been granted, the relief in respect of passing off be considered. She would further submit that despite service none appears on behalf of the Defendant and the ad-interim relief granted by order of 5^th January, 2026 be confirmed as interim relief.

¶23

3. By order of 5^th January, 2026, this Court had come to a prima facie finding, that the impugned label mark is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s registered trademark and is depicted in a pirated art work and ad-interim relief came to be granted. It is submitted that the sales turn over of the Plaintiff’s in respect of its trademark and the artistic work of “BISLERI” for the financial year 2023-2024 is to the tune of Rs. 2639 crores and the promotional expenses is approximately Rs. 101 crores.

¶24

4. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff would further point out the specimen sale invoices and advertisement material appended to the plaint. She would submit that by reason of the voluminous sales, the Plaintiff has earned substantial goodwill and reputation and the public associates registered trademark/trade dress with the Plaintiff.

¶25

5. The proprietary right of the Plaintiff in the registered trademark as well as art work is prima facie evidenced from the registration certificate placed on record. The sales turn over and the advertisement/promotional expenses would demonstrate the goodwill

¶26

¶27

Arya

¶28

86-IA-838-2026.doc

¶29

and reputation earned by the Plaintiff in respect of its registered trademark of “BISLERI” and the original art work. The fact that this Court has come to a prima facie finding of deceptive similarity indicates misrepresentation. As the impugned products are deceptively similar, there is likelihood of injury to the Plaintiff which is required to be restrained. Prima facie case has been made out for grant of interim relief in terms of prayer clauses (c) and (d).

¶30

6. By order of 5^th January, 2026, this Court had granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (e) and Court Receiver was appointed. The commission is duly executed and despite service, none appears on behalf of the Defendants which indicates that the Defendants do not have any defence available. There is no reason as to why the ad-interim relief granted on 5^th January, 2026 should not be confirmed as interim relief.

¶31

7. Ad-interim relief granted on 5^th January, 2026 is confirmed as interim relief. Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (d).

¶32

[SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]

¶33

¶34

Arya

Bisleri International Private Limited v. Drink Well India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bisleri International Private Limited v. Drink Well India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Indu Vasudeo Dabrai vs Naresh Vasudeo Dabrai (Deceased)

Noel Bernard George Barretto alias Noel Barretto vs Justin Barretto

Synthesis Communication vs India Government Mint, Mumbai

Prakash Narsojirao Tandale Vs Mandakini Ashok Tandale and Anr.

Hindustan Unilever Limited vs Shamsudheen K S trading as a Plus Detergents

Mr. Ashok Ramesh Bohat vs Airport Authority of India Thr. Mr. Radhakrishna Eviction Officer Western Regional and Anr.