Bombay High Court: In a trade mark infringement and passing off case filed by CAMPURE against KARPURE/ AIR KARPURE, the Single Judge Bench of Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J., held that no case of infringement or passing off was made out as there was no similarity between the two trade marks which might lead to causing confusion amongst public or likely association of the defendant’s goods as that of the plaintiff. It was opined by the Court that there was no possibility of slurring over the letter “r” of the mark so as to sound phonetically similar to the letter “m”. Additionally, in the absence of claim of passing off against specific products the same cannot be granted as there was significant difference in physical appearance and packaging of products.
Background
Plaintiff registered a trade mark “CAMPURE”/ 
In July 2024, while conducting general due diligence, the plaintiff came across defendant’s trade mark registration for the impugned mark “AIR KARPURE” in Class 5 applied on proposed to be used basis. The plaintiff claimed it to be identical/deceptively similar to their trade mark “CAMPURE”. The plaintiff also came across the defendant’s website www.karpure.in which revealed that the defendant is using the mark “AIR KARPURE” as device mark 
In July 2020 defendant created the original artwork of 
Thus, the plaintiff filed a suit for trade mark infringement and passing off before the present Court claiming interim injunction against the use of defendant’s trade mark and had also objected to the use of domain name of the defendant which consisted of the word mark.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court dismissed the objection of maintainability of suit, raised by the defendant explaining that the statutory provisions does not bar the institution of the suit for infringement of trade mark against the registered proprietor of a trademark.
The Court stated that Section 29 of Trademark Act, 1999 (‘TM Act’) made it clear that to constitute infringement of a registered trade mark, the basic requirement is the use of identical/deceptively similar mark by a person who was not a registered proprietor. In the instant case the plaintiff and defendant were both registered proprietors of their respective trade marks. Thus, the remedy of infringement under the said section is not available to the plaintiff.
The Court considered the validity of the registration of the defendant’s mark and observed that the plaintiff did not file any opposition to the defendant’s registration when it had made the public advertisement before such registration. Hence, the fact that the defendant’s mark had been granted registration indicated that it had passed the muster of Section 9 and 11 of the TM Act.
The Court explained that in order check for deceptive similarity, the marks have to be viewed as a whole, and it was not permissible to dissect the marks and compare parts of the trade mark. It was stated that there was no possibility of slurring over the letter “r” of the mark so as to sound phonetically similar to the letter “m” in CAMPURE and KARPURE. Prima facie, the plaintiff had not been able to meet the threshold of ex-facie illegality so as to deprive the defendant of the use of its registered trade mark.
The Court noted that the plaintiff alleged fraudulent registration of defendant’s trade mark but had not made any specific pleadings to demonstrate the same. Thus, plaintiff has failed to make out an exceptional case to warrant going beyond the registration of the defendant’s mark and deprive the defendant who is registered proprietor of its statutory right of use of its mark.
Furthermore, it was observed by the Court that the plaintiff had not placed all the necessary facts on record which led to its trade mark registration. It was pointed out that there was bonafide explanation for adoption of the trade mark by the defendant as its mark contained the word “Pure” which formed part of its earlier registered marks and is in consonance with its various tag lines using purity as its theme. Thus, the non-disclosure of the opposition to the Plaintiff’s registration and the stand taken by the plaintiff in the counter statement, which had to be produced by the defendant, disentitled the plaintiff to grant of discretionary relief.
It was also noted by the Court that the relevant consumer base for the products which are deodorizers, air purifiers etc would be an average educated class with the ability to differentiate between the rival marks and the products when there was no prima facie similarity in the appearance of the marks.
With reference to the remedy of passing off, the Court stated that it was necessary for plaintiff to specifically plead about the plaintiff’s products which were so marketed by the defendant so as to pass off its goods as that of the plaintiff which was absent in the pleadings. Additionally, there was marked difference in the way the defendant advertised its products. There was variation in the colour scheme, packaging and the general look of the defendant’s packaging. The difference in physical appearances or the packaging played a significant role in case of passing off. The Court opined that the rival trade marks in question have sufficient prima facie differences to distinguish the goods of the defendant from that of the plaintiff.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the interim application of passing off and infringement of the trade mark and held that no case of infringement was made out as defendant’s trade marks did not resemble the plaintiff’s trade marks to cause confusion between rival marks of plaintiff and the defendant. Furthermore, it was stated that there was no possibility of slurring over the letter “r” of the mark to sound phonetically similar to the letter “m” to cause depiction of the rival marks. Additionally, the artwork used in the rival marks set them apart. It was also held that in absence of the specific product which could be claimed by the plaintiff as deceptively similar with those of the defendant as to cause confusion, offence of passing of cannot be made.
[Mangalam Organics Ltd v. N Ranga Rao And Sons Pvt Ltd, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3017, decided on: 3-9-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Advocate for the Plaintiff- Hiren Kamod, Anees Patel, Usha Chandrasekhar, Avisha Mehta and Rajamtangi i/by Suvarna Joshi, Advocates
Advocate for the Defendant- Rashmin Khandekar, Anand Mohan, Rahul Dhote, Shwetank Tripathi, Nipun Krishnaraj and Vidit Desai i/by ANM Global, Advocates