Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal in Trademark Infringement Case — Plaintiff Fails to Establish Prima Facie Case and Guilty of Iniquitous Conduct. The court upheld the Single Judge's refusal of interim injunction under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Copyright Act, 1957, finding suppression of facts and lack of evidence of ownership.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY

Admin

2026-05-18 14:57:32

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The present Commercial Appeal was filed by Laser Shaving India Pvt Ltd (the original plaintiff) against the order dated 25/06/2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing its application for interim injunction. The plaintiff claimed to be an old and established manufacturer of safety razors and blades, using the trademark 'SETMAX' and a distinctive trade dress. It alleged that the defendants, RKM International Products Pvt Ltd and others, were infringing its trademark and copyright by using a similar mark and packaging. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark 'SETMAX' or any deceptively similar mark. The Single Judge dismissed the application, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case and that its iniquitous conduct disentitled it to relief. In the appeal, the Division Bench heard arguments from both sides. The court examined the background facts, including the plaintiff's claim of copyright ownership in the artistic work 'SetMax Platinum Blades' created by a graphic designer. However, the court noted that the plaintiff did not examine the graphic designer to prove the originality and ownership of the copyright. The court also found that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts and made misrepresentations regarding the use of the mark. The court held that the plaintiff's conduct was inequitable, and therefore, it was not entitled to the equitable relief of interim injunction. The court further observed that the balance of convenience was not in favor of the plaintiff, and no irreparable loss would be caused if the injunction was refused. Consequently, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal, upholding the order of the Single Judge.

Headnote

A) Trademark Law - Interim Injunction - Prima Facie Case - The plaintiff must establish a strong prima facie case for grant of interim injunction; mere registration of trademark is not sufficient if the plaintiff's conduct is inequitable. (Paras 1-10)

B) Copyright Law - Artistic Work - Ownership - The plaintiff claimed copyright in the packaging/trade dress but failed to prove original creation and ownership, as the graphic designer was not examined. (Paras 11-20)

C) Civil Procedure - Iniquitous Conduct - Disentitlement to Equitable Relief - A party approaching the court for equitable relief must come with clean hands; suppression of material facts and misrepresentation disentitles the plaintiff from any interim relief. (Paras 21-30)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to an interim injunction restraining the respondents from using the mark 'SETMAX' and the trade dress, pending disposal of the suit.

Final Decision

The Division Bench dismissed the Commercial Appeal, upholding the order of the Single Judge dated 25/06/2025, which refused the interim injunction.

Law Points

Prima facie case
balance of convenience
irreparable loss
iniquitous conduct
trademark infringement
copyright infringement
interim injunction
commercial appeal

Case Details

2026:BHC-OS:9090-DB

Interim Application (L) No. 26994 of 2025 in Commercial Appeal (ST) No. 26806 of 2025

2026-04-06

Bharati Dangre, Manjusha Deshpande

2026:BHC-OS:9090-DB

Mr. Rohan Kadam a/w Ms. Rucha Vaidya, Mr. Ashutosh Kane, Ms. Vedangi Soman, Ms. Sumana Roychoudhary i/b W.S. Kane and Co. for the Appellant; Mr. Carl Patel a/w Mr. Gaurav Beyani for the Respondents

Laser Shaving India Pvt Ltd

RKM International Products Pvt Ltd & Ors

Nature of Litigation

Commercial appeal against dismissal of interim injunction application in a trademark and copyright infringement suit.

Remedy Sought

The appellant/plaintiff sought an interim injunction restraining the respondents from using the mark 'SETMAX' and the trade dress, pending disposal of the suit.

Filing Reason

The appellant claimed that the respondents were infringing its trademark and copyright by using a deceptively similar mark and packaging.

Previous Decisions

The learned Single Judge dismissed the interim application on 25/06/2025, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case and was guilty of iniquitous conduct.

Issues

Whether the appellant/plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction? Whether the appellant/plaintiff is guilty of iniquitous conduct disentitling it to equitable relief? Whether the balance of convenience lies in favor of the appellant/plaintiff?

Submissions/Arguments

Mr. Rohan Kadam for the appellant argued that the plaintiff has a strong prima facie case and the Single Judge erred in dismissing the application. Mr. Carl Patel for the respondents argued that the plaintiff suppressed material facts and misrepresented, and thus is not entitled to any relief.

Ratio Decidendi

A party seeking equitable relief must come with clean hands; suppression of material facts and misrepresentation disentitles the plaintiff from interim injunction. Mere registration of trademark is not sufficient to establish prima facie case if conduct is inequitable.

Judgment Excerpts

The present Commercial Appeal is filed by the Original Plaintiff, Laser Shaving (India) Pvt Ltd being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge on 25/06/2025, thereby dismissing the application by recording that applicant has failed to establish prima facie case and also that the applicants iniquitous conduct disentitle it for any relief.

Procedural History

The plaintiff filed a suit for trademark and copyright infringement along with an interim application for injunction. The Single Judge dismissed the interim application on 25/06/2025. The plaintiff filed a Commercial Appeal and an Interim Application for stay. The Division Bench heard the appeal and dismissed it on 06/04/2026.