Bombay High Court Cracks Down on ‘SUPER ASIAN PLUS’: Finds Dishonest Adoption, Grants Permanent Injunction to Asian Paints

Bombay High Court Cracks Down on ‘SUPER ASIAN PLUS’: Finds Dishonest Adoption, Grants Permanent Injunction to Asian Paints

Introduction

The Bombay High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of Asian Paints, holding that the use of the mark “SUPER ASIAN PLUS” was entirely dishonest and actuated by bad faith, amounting to trademark infringement and passing off. Justice Arif S. Doctor, by judgment dated 20 February 2026, also directed three of the defendants to each pay ₹3 lakh in compensatory costs.

Factual Background

Asian Paints submitted that it had been using its house mark “ASIAN PAINTS” continuously since 1952 and the mark “ASIAN” since 1965. It asserted that by virtue of enormous business operations and the distinctive character of its marks, valuable common law rights had accrued in its favour. The company placed on record evidence of substantial turnover, which had grown from approximately ₹12,000 crores in 2013–14 to over ₹29,000 crores in 2024–25, to demonstrate longstanding and extensive commercial use.

Asian Paints alleged that the manufacturers of wall putty and cement paint under the mark “SUPER ASIAN PLUS” were using the name “Super Gloss Paints,” which it described as fictitious and adopted to mislead the public and/or escape liability. It contended that the impugned mark prominently featured the word “ASIAN,” thereby encroaching upon its registered and well-established trademark rights.

Procedural Background

Asian Paints instituted a commercial suit seeking reliefs of permanent injunction, damages, and delivery-up of infringing materials. The defendants failed to effectively contest the proceedings.

Upon consideration of the pleadings, evidence, and submissions, the Court proceeded to determine whether the plaintiff had established infringement and passing off, and whether it was entitled to the reliefs sought.

Issues

1. Whether the mark “SUPER ASIAN PLUS” infringed the registered trademarks of Asian Paints.

2. Whether the defendants’ use of the impugned mark amounted to passing off.

3. Whether Asian Paints was entitled to damages and compensatory costs.

Contentions of the Parties

Asian Paints contended that its trademark registrations were valid and subsisting, and that statutory rights flowing from such registrations were firmly established. It argued that the word “ASIAN” constituted the leading, prominent, and essential feature of the impugned mark. The addition of the words “SUPER” and “PLUS,” it submitted, did not materially distinguish the mark and was insufficient to obviate the likelihood of confusion. The plaintiff further alleged dishonest adoption, contending that the defendants had deliberately sought to trade upon its goodwill and reputation. It also claimed damages of ₹5,00,000 for infringement and passing off.

The defendants did not effectively contest the proceedings, and their absence was noted by the Court in assessing their conduct.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Court held that Asian Paints’ trademark registrations were valid and subsisting, and that the statutory rights flowing therefrom were firmly established. On the basis of turnover figures and long-standing use, the Court observed that the plaintiff had demonstrated extensive commercial presence and goodwill in the marks “ASIAN PAINTS” and “ASIAN.”

In comparing the rival marks, the Court found that the word “ASIAN” constituted the leading, prominent, and essential feature of the impugned mark “SUPER ASIAN PLUS.” Justice Doctor observed that the addition of the words “SUPER” and “PLUS” did not materially distinguish the mark and that confusion was probable.

The Court concluded that Asian Paints had clearly made out a case for both infringement of its registered trademarks and passing off. It further observed that the defendants’ conduct—particularly their failure to contest the proceedings—lent credence to the view that the adoption of the mark was dishonest and actuated by bad faith.

Although Asian Paints had claimed ₹5,00,000 in damages, the Court noted that no specific evidence had been led to establish actual loss. Nevertheless, taking a stern view of the defendants’ negligence and the unnecessary expenditure caused to the plaintiff, the Court invoked Section 35 of the CPC (as amended by the Commercial Courts Act) to award compensatory costs.

Decision

The Bombay High Court decreed the suit in favour of Asian Paints, granting a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark “SUPER ASIAN PLUS” or any deceptively similar mark. The Court also ordered delivery-up of all infringing materials for destruction. Three of the defendants were directed to each pay ₹3 lakh as compensatory costs to Asian Paints within eight weeks, failing which the amount would carry interest at 8% per annum.

In this case the appellant was represented by Advocates Vinod Bhagat, Apeksha Mehta & Twisha Singh.