Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Bombay High Court: In an appeal filed by Kailash Masala Industries, challenging a trial court’s refusal to grant interim protection in its trademark and passing-off suit over the trademark “Mahalaxmi” for its Masala Products, a single-judge bench of Shailesh P. Brahme, J., dismissed the appeal with costs of ₹10,000/-, to be deposited in the Trial Court and disbursed to the respondents.
In the instant matter, the appellant claimed to be the user of the trademark “Mahalaxmi” since 01-04-2010 and had applied for registration on 04-05-2021. The respondents opposed the application, and the competent authority rejected the registration on 31-01-2024 and noted that the appellant had sought adjournments, had not appeared, and had not made submissions despite opportunities. The respondent’s own trademark registration application was pending.
The appellant-plaintiff, filed a civil suit seeking a perpetual injunction and an action for passing off. Along with the plaint, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction was filed. The Trial Court rejected the application for temporary injunction. Aggrived by the impugned order of trial court, the appellant filed the present appeal.
Vide order dated 06-10-2025, the High Court directed the parties to disclose the status of the suit, but they failed to do so. A further order dated 04-11-2025 required a report from the Presiding Officer, whose report dated 19-11-2025 revealed that the suit “has not been progressed much, even after four years” despite no stay.
The Court noted that the appellant, despite claiming turnover over ₹1 crore, had not produced income-tax returns, GST invoices, bank statements, or audited accounts, all of which were essential. The Court held that no tangible material is placed on record to show that the trademark of the appellant has been used and a goodwill has been created.
The Court found that no copies of the trademarks, either of the appellant or the respondents, were produced. The Court emphasised that it is the “foremost duty” of a party seeking discretionary injunctive relief “to disclose the exact nature of the trademark, either by producing photo copy or colour photo copy for comparison,” and none was produced even at the appellate stage.
Referring to Cutis Biotech v. Serum Institute of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 616, the Court reiterated that there are three foundational elements of a passing-off action, (i) goodwill and reputation; (ii) likelihood of misrepresentation; and (iii) damage or likelihood of damage, however, the appellant failed at the first threshold itself.
Referencing to Wander Ltd. Vs. Antox India (P) Ltd., 1990 SC (Supp) 727, the Court stated that injunction is an equitable relief and conduct is a relevant factor. The Court emphasised that “conduct of the parties is relevant when the Court is examining validity of the order passed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC.” The Court held that the appellant’s conduct was not fair and honest
,
The Court noted that the appellant had repeatedly sought adjournments, failed to proceed with the suit, and allowed the proceedings to stagnate for over four years. The Court stated that “the sword of Damocles cannot be kept hanging over respondents for indefinite period. The conduct of appellant is objectionable.”
The Court held that the findings of the Trial Court were “plausible and reasonable” and there was no perversity warranting interference or remand.
The Court dismissed the appeal with costs of ₹10,000/-, to be deposited in the Trial Court and disbursed to the respondents. The Court directed the Trial Court to dispose of the suit within six months, with cooperation from both parties.
[Kailash Masala Industries v. Organic Khandeshi Food Products, APEAL FROM ORDER NO. 44 OF 2023, Decided on 26-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Vijay B. Patil, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Bajaj Anil S., Counsel for the Respondents