[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Ifb Industries Limited vs Mehul Bharatbhai Vavdiya And Others on 27 January, 2026
Author: Ravi Krishan Kapur
Bench: Ravi Krishan Kapur
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORIGINAL SIDE
(Intellectual Property Rights Division)
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur
IA NO. GA-COM/1/2025
In IP-COM/48/2025
IFB INDUSTRIES LIMITED
Vs
MEHUL BHARATBHAI VAVDIYA AND OTHERS
For the plaintiff : Mr. Soumya Ray Chowdhury, Advocate
Ms. Susrea Mitra, Advocate
Ms. Samina Khanum, Advocate
Ms. Ojasvi Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Kaustav Misra, Advocate
Mr. Shamboo Dutta, Advocate
Ms. Bhawna Tekriwal, Advocate
For the defendant no 2 : Mr. Anujit Mookherhji, Advocate
Mr. P. Chandra, Advocate
Heard on : 27.01.2026
Judgment on : 27.01.2026
Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.:
1. The respondent no. 1 remains unrepresented even in the second call. The
respondent no. 2 submits that the ad interim order dated 25th September,
2025 has been complied with.
2. The suit is for passing off.
3. Briefly, the petitioner is, inter alia, engaged in the business of manufacturing
consumer durables, consumer care goods, engineering goods, kitchen
appliances, automobile parts and other ancillary products. The petitioner
also sells a range of detergents under the brand name 'IFB ESSENTIALS'.
The mark 'IFB' is also the house mark of the petitioner. The petitioner is the
prior adopter, user and the registered proprietor of the trademark 'IFB' and
'IFB' formative marks. The trademark 'IFB' has been in use since the year
1990. The petitioner also sells its goods under the mark 'IFB' and variants
thereof. In creating such goodwill, the petitioner has incurred huge
advertising expenses and has impressive sale figures. The details of the
registrations being enjoyed by the petitioner are morefully enumerated both
in the plaint and the petition. The petitioner claims registration under the
Trademarks Act, 1999.
4. In the ordinary course of business, the petitioner has been selling its
products under mark 'IFB ESSENTIALS' which had been registered as far
back as in 2014. The petitioner is also the proprietor of several domain
names comprising the expression 'IFB', 'IFB ESSENTIALS' and other 'IFB'
formative marks.
5. This suit has been necessitated in view of a deceptively similar and strikingly
identical mark "LFB" under which identical products are being sold by the
respondent no. 1 in collusion with respondent nos. 2 to 5. It is alleged that in
or about third week of September, 2025, the petitioner came to learn that the
respondents are selling, manufacturing, marketing, advertising and
otherwise dealing in varieties of top load liquid detergents under the mark
and which is deceptively similar and
strikingly identical to the mark as well as the packaging of the petitioner. The
manner in which the impugned product is being sold suggests ill-motive and
bad faith by the respondents. The ulterior object being to divert all attention
towards the mark "LFB" which appears as the petitioner's mark "IFB". The
impugned trade dress of the respondents is also a slavish imitation of the
marks and unique packaging of the petitioner.
6. For convenience, the rival marks are set out below:
Petitioner's Mark Impugned Mark
7. Admittedly, the petitioner is a prior user and adopter of the mark and has
primacy in respect of the same against all other marks. The respondent no. 1
is carrying on business under the name and style of "TAAGROR" from Gujarat
and is using the same trade channels to sell its products under the
deceptively similar marks. The allegation of the respondent no. 1 being a
habitual infringer is also substantiated from a prior suit being T.S. (COM) No.
73 of 2023 (IFB Industries Limited vs. Mehul Bharatbhai Vavdiya) pending
before the Learned Commercial Court at Alipore which has been filed against
the respondent no. 1 herein and others.
8. A bare comparison of the two products would show that the respondent has
dishonestly adopted the same only to misrepresent and deceive innocent
customers. The respondent has not provided any explanation for such
dishonest adoption. In Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia
(2004) 3 SCC 90 it has been held that:
"5. The law on the subject is well settled. In cases of infringement either of
trade mark or of copyright, normally an injunction must follow. Mere delay
in bringing action is not sufficient to defeat grant of injunction in such cases.
The grant of injunction also becomes necessary if it prima facie appears that
the adoption of the mark was Itself dishonest."
9. In Edible Products (India) Limited vs. Shalimar Chemical Works Private Limited
2025 SCC OnLine Cal 9444 it has been held as follows:
"69. The user of similar trade dress/appearance in the defendant's
packaging of its product, in the absence of any explanation for such striking
resemblance, definitely leads to the inference of misrepresentation and
intended deceit. In such circumstances, dishonesty is to be presumed if
there is no explanation for adoption of a similar appearance/trade dress as
the prior user despite knowledge of such user." [Satyam Infoway Ltd. vs.
Siffynet Solutions (Private) Limited reported in (2004) 6 SCC 145].
10. In view of the striking similarities in the competing marks and the
respondent's failure to offer any plausible explanation for such adoption,
dishonest intent and misrepresentation are ex facie established.
11. In such circumstances, the petitioner has been able to make out a strong
prima facie case insofar as the merits are concerned. The balance of
convenience and irreparable injury is also in favour of orders being passed as
prayed for herein. The ad interim order dated 25th September, 2025 stands
confirmed. There shall be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the Notice of
Motion.
12. With the above directions, GA-COM/1/2025 stands disposed of.
13. Liberty is granted to all the parties to take necessary steps for expeditious
hearing of the suit.
14. Let this matter appear under the heading "For Case Management Hearing of
Suits" in the monthly list of March, 2026.
(RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.)
S.Bag
