Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Dr. Ashok M. Bhat, is the registered proprietor of the trademark 'NOVA' and an artistic work used for brilliantine hair cream. In 2007, he discovered that Respondent No. 1, Harichand Nagpal, was selling counterfeit products using a similar label. The applicant filed a suit for infringement and passing off, and obtained an interim injunction on 24 November 2010 restraining the defendants from using the trademark 'NOVA' or any deceptively similar mark. Subsequently, the applicant filed Notice of Motion No. 1269 of 2016 and Interim Application (L) No. 9324 of 2025 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, alleging that Respondent No. 1 had willfully breached the injunction by using the mark 'NOVA MINI' and a similar artistic work. The court compared the marks and labels, finding that 'NOVA MINI' was deceptively similar to 'NOVA' and the impugned label was substantially similar to the registered artistic work. The court held that the respondent's actions constituted a willful and deliberate breach of the injunction order, and allowed the applications, directing the respondent to be punished for contempt.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Contempt of Court - Breach of Injunction - Order XXXIX Rule 2A, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court considered whether the use of a deceptively similar mark 'NOVA MINI' and a similar artistic work by the respondent, despite an injunction against using 'NOVA' and the registered artistic work, amounted to willful disobedience. The court held that the impugned mark and label were deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark and artistic work, and the respondent's conduct constituted a willful breach of the injunction order, warranting action under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Respondent No. 1, having been injuncted from using the trade mark 'NOVA' and the artistic work, could have used the trade mark 'NOVA MINI' and the artistic work depicted in the impugned label, and whether such use constitutes willful breach and disobedience of the injunction order.
Final Decision
The court allowed both applications, holding that Respondent No. 1 had willfully and deliberately breached the injunction order dated 24 November 2010 by using the deceptively similar mark 'NOVA MINI' and the impugned artistic work. The court directed that Respondent No. 1 be punished for contempt under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC.
Law Points
- Contempt for breach of injunction
- Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC
- trademark infringement
- deceptive similarity
- registered trademark
- artistic work
- willful disobedience
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (07) 50
Interim Application (L) No. 9324 of 2025 in Commercial IP Suit No. 378 of 2021 along with Notice of Motion No. 1269 of 2016 in Commercial IP Suit No. 378 of 2021
Mr. Hiren Kamod a/w. Ms. Rashi Thakur and Mr. Siddhant Gupta i/b. Vinod A. Bhagat for the Applicant; Mr. Alankar Kirpekar i/b. Jaya Manghwani for Respondent No. 1
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Contempt proceedings for alleged willful breach of an interim injunction order in a trademark infringement and passing off suit.
Remedy Sought
The applicant sought action against Respondent No. 1 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC for willful disobedience of the injunction order dated 24 November 2010.
Filing Reason
The applicant alleged that Respondent No. 1, despite being injuncted from using the trademark 'NOVA' and the registered artistic work, used the deceptively similar mark 'NOVA MINI' and a similar artistic work.
Previous Decisions
An interim injunction was granted on 24 November 2010 restraining the defendants from using the trademark 'NOVA' or any deceptively similar mark in relation to cosmetic goods.
Issues
Whether the use of the mark 'NOVA MINI' and the impugned artistic work by Respondent No. 1 constitutes a willful breach of the injunction order dated 24 November 2010.
Whether the impugned mark and artistic work are deceptively similar to the applicant's registered trademark and artistic work.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant argued that 'NOVA MINI' is deceptively similar to 'NOVA' and the impugned label is substantially similar to the registered artistic work, constituting a clear breach of the injunction.
Respondent No. 1 likely argued that 'NOVA MINI' is distinct from 'NOVA' and the label is different, but the judgment does not detail the respondent's arguments.
Ratio Decidendi
The use of a mark that is deceptively similar to an injuncted trademark, and a label that is substantially similar to an injuncted artistic work, constitutes willful disobedience of an injunction order under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, even if the exact mark or work is not identical.
Judgment Excerpts
The short question which arise for determination in the present Interim Application is whether Respondent No. 1, having been injuncted from using the trade mark ‘NOVA’ which is the Applicant’s registered mark and the artistic work as set out in Table ‘A’ below, could have used the trade mark ‘NOVA MINI’ and the artistic work depicted in the label which is set out in Table ‘B’ below viz.
It is not in dispute that the Applicant, i.e., the Plaintiff in the captioned Suit, is the registered proprietor of the trade mark ‘NOVA’ and the artistic work as set out in table ‘A’ above.
Procedural History
The applicant filed a suit for infringement and passing off in 2008. An interim injunction was granted on 24 November 2010. The applicant subsequently filed Notice of Motion No. 1269 of 2016 and Interim Application (L) No. 9324 of 2025 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC alleging breach of the injunction. Both applications were heard together and disposed of by this common order.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXXIX Rule 2A
