Bombay High Court: While adjudicating an interim application concerning infringement of trade mark and copyright in relation to wall putty and enamel products, the Single Judge Bench of Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J., held that the impugned marks and pirated artworks were deceptively and confusingly similar to the registered trade marks and artistic works of the plaintiff—Asian Paints Ltd. The Court noted that the earlier findings of deceptive similarity and infringement remained unchallenged, and accordingly confirmed the ad-interim relief as interim relief, restraining the defendant from manufacturing, marketing, distributing, selling and/or using the impugned marks and artworks
Background:
By order dated 10-12-2024, the Court arrived at prima facie findings of overall deceptive similarity in the rival marks and artworks. The impugned marks and artwork adopted by the Defendant were found deceptively and confusingly similar to those of the plaintiff. Ad-interim relief was granted for infringement of trade mark and copyright. Subsequently, by order dated 28-11-2025, ad-interim relief in respect of passing off was also granted.
It was pointed out that although service was affected, no one appeared on behalf of the defendant. The submission was that the prima facie findings already recorded by the Court continued to remain unchallenged in the absence of any response. On that basis, the plaintiff sought confirmation of the ad-interim relief as interim relief.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that despite service, none appeared on behalf of the defendant. The Court noted that the prima facie findings arrived at by its earlier orders dated 10-12-2024 and 28-07-2025 had not been displaced. The Court observed that there was no reason why the ad-interim relief should not be confirmed as interim relief. Accordingly, the Court allowed the interim application in terms of prayer clauses.
The Court highlighted that the defendant was restrained from manufacturing, marketing, distributing, selling and/or using in any manner the impugned marks and pirated artworks which were identical with and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered trade marks and copyrighted artistic works. The Court further observed that the relief extended to preventing passing off by use of trade dress deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s distinctive trade dress.
Finally, the Court disposed of the Court Receiver’s Report, discharged the Court Receiver without passing of accounts, and directed that all expenses and costs of the Court Receiver be paid within eight weeks by the plaintiff upon demand.
[Asian Paints Ltd. v. Vinod Satyaprakashji Mittal, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4601, decided on 18-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: Vinod A. Bhagat a/w. Sonam Pradhan i/by Vinod Bhagat
Court’s Assistant: Deepak S. Bhalerao, 2nd Assistant to Court Receiver