Bombay High Court Shields Asian Paints From Look-Alike Brands, Confirms Injunction Against Rival Manufacturer

Bombay High Court Shields Asian Paints From Look-Alike Brands, Confirms Injunction Against Rival Manufacturer

Introduction

The Bombay High Court has granted interim protection to Asian Paints Limited by restraining a rival manufacturer from using marks and artwork found to be deceptively similar to Asian Paints’ registered trademarks and copyrighted material. The Court confirmed an earlier ad-interim injunction after noting the absence of any contest by the defendant.

Factual Background

Asian Paints Limited, a leading manufacturer of paints, wall putty and allied products, approached the Bombay High Court alleging infringement of its registered trademarks “ASIAN” and “ASIAN PAINTS” and copyright in its distinctive artworks used for products such as “TRUCARE” wall putty and “APCOLITE GLOSS” enamel.

The grievance was directed against Vinod Satyaprakashji Mittal, who was manufacturing and selling competing products under the marks “ASIANGOLD” and “SUPREME GLOSS,” along with packaging and artwork allegedly mirroring Asian Paints’ colour schemes, layouts and overall trade dress.

Procedural Background

The order dated December 10, 2024, the Court had granted an ad-interim injunction after recording a prima facie finding of deceptive similarity between the rival marks and artworks. This protection was further extended on July 28, 2025, in relation to the passing-off claim.

Despite service of notice, the defendant neither entered appearance nor filed any reply. In view of this continued non-participation, the matter came up for confirmation of the interim relief.

Issues

1. Whether the marks “ASIANGOLD” and “SUPREME GLOSS” were deceptively similar to Asian Paints’ registered trademarks.

2. Whether the impugned artwork and trade dress amounted to infringement of copyright and passing off.

3. Whether an interim injunction granted earlier deserved confirmation.

Contentions of the Parties

Asian Paints contended that the defendant had adopted marks, artwork and trade dress that were confusingly similar to its well-known brands, with the clear intention of riding on its goodwill and reputation. It was argued that such use was likely to mislead consumers and cause irreparable harm.

The defendant did not appear or place any material on record to rebut these allegations.

Reasoning and Analysis

Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh noted that the Court had already, in earlier orders, recorded prima facie findings of overall deceptive similarity between the rival marks and of infringement of Asian Paints’ copyright and trade dress. Since the defendant failed to contest the proceedings despite service, those findings remained unchallenged.

The Court held that in such circumstances, there was no reason to revisit or dilute the earlier conclusions. The continued use of the impugned marks and artwork was found likely to cause confusion and pass off the defendant’s goods as those of Asian Paints.

Decision

The Bombay High Court confirmed the ad-interim injunction and restrained the defendant from manufacturing, marketing, distributing or selling wall putty, enamel, paints or allied products under the marks “ASIANGOLD,” “SUPREME GLOSS,” or any other mark deceptively similar to “ASIAN” or “ASIAN PAINTS.”

The Court also prohibited the use of any artwork, colour scheme, layout or trade dress substantially or strikingly similar to Asian Paints’ “TRUCARE” and “APCOLITE GLOSS” artworks, thereby continuing full interim protection in favour of Asian Paints.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Vinod A. Bhagat a/w. Ms. Sonam Pradhan i/by Vinod Bhagat, Advocates.