ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED v. SMT. MANJU RANI JINDAL and ORS.
Trademark Infringement and Passing Off – Application of Deceptive Similarity Test and Awarding of Compensatory Costs in Uncontested Commercial Suits under the Commercial Courts Act.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:5044
Decision Date: 20-02-2026
List of Laws
The Trade Marks Act, 1999; The Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Section 35); Letters Patent (Clause XIV); Intellectual Property Law - Infringement and Passing Off
- Facts: The Plaintiff, Asian Paints Limited, a leading manufacturer in the paint industry, filed a suit for trademark infringement and passing off against the Defendants. The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the well-known trademarks "ASIAN PAINTS" and "ASIAN", used since 1952 and 1965 respectively. In January 2015, the Plaintiff discovered that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were manufacturing wall putty and cement paint under the mark "SUPER ASIAN PLUS". Investigation revealed that the word "ASIAN" was displayed as the dominant feature in the impugned mark, while "SUPER" and "PLUS" were written in minuscule font. A Court Receiver previously seized infringing goods from the premises of Defendant No. 4. Despite being served, the Defendants failed to file a written statement or appear for the final hearing.
- Procedural Posture: The suit was filed in the Bombay High Court under its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction as a Commercial Suit. Earlier, the Court had granted ex-parte ad-interim injunctions and leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent for joining the cause of action for passing off, which attained finality. The matter proceeded to final hearing as an uncontested commercial suit.
- Issue: Whether the Defendants' use of the mark "SUPER ASIAN PLUS" constitutes infringement of the Plaintiff's registered trademarks and amounts to passing off, and whether the Plaintiff is entitled to damages and costs?
- Holding: Yes, the Court held that the Defendants committed trademark infringement and passing off. The Court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff, granting a permanent injunction and awarding compensatory costs, though it declined the specific claim for liquidated damages due to lack of evidence.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the Plaintiff's marks are valid, subsisting, and have acquired "well-known" status, commanding immense goodwill. Applying the "overall and broad impression" test, the Court found "SUPER ASIAN PLUS" to be deceptively similar because the registered mark "ASIAN" was wholly subsumed as the leading and essential feature. Since the rival goods were identical, the likelihood of consumer confusion was probable. The Defendants' failure to contest the suit and their use of a fictitious manufacturer name ("Super Gloss Paints") indicated dishonest intent and bad faith. Regarding costs, the Court applied Section 35 of the CPC (as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015), noting that the Defendants' negligent conduct compelled the Plaintiff to incur avoidable expenses. However, as the Plaintiff led no specific evidence to quantify actual loss, the prayer for Rs. 5,00,000/- in damages was not granted, but substantial compensatory costs were awarded.
🔒 For Members Only