“Identical Mark, Identical Goods”: Bombay High Court Bars Use of ‘LOTUS’ for Edible Oils

“Identical Mark, Identical Goods”: Bombay High Court Bars Use of ‘LOTUS’ for Edible Oils

Introduction

The Bombay High Court has permanently restrained a Chandigarh-based firm from using the mark “LOTUS” for edible oils. The Court held that adoption of an identical mark for identical goods amounted to clear trademark infringement and passing off of Bunge India Pvt. Ltd.’s registered trademark.

Factual Background

Bunge India is the registered proprietor of the trademark “LOTUS” for edible oils, a mark originally registered in 1947 by Hindustan Lever Limited and assigned to Bunge India in 2003 along with the edible oils business. The registrations, covering both word and label marks with a lotus device, remain valid until 2034 and have acquired substantial goodwill through decades of continuous use.

The dispute arose in April 2012, when Bunge India noticed hoardings advertising edible oils under the “LOTUS” name. Further inquiry revealed that Lotus Refinery Pvt. Ltd. had applied to register “LOTUS Refineries” along with a lotus device for edible oils, claiming user rights from 2010.

Procedural Background

Bunge India instituted a commercial intellectual property suit before the Bombay High Court seeking permanent injunction and ancillary reliefs against Lotus Refinery and its associate entities. The suit was adjudicated by Justice Arif S. Doctor, who delivered judgment on December 18, 2025.

Despite service, the defendants failed to effectively contest the proceedings, did not cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness, and allowed their evidence to be closed.

Issues

1. Whether the defendants’ use of “LOTUS” for edible oils constituted trademark infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

2. Whether Bunge India had established a case of passing off based on prior use and goodwill.

3. Whether the defendants’ adoption of the mark was honest or bona fide.

Contentions of the Parties

Plaintiff: Bunge India contended that it has enjoyed uninterrupted statutory and commercial rights over the “LOTUS” trademark for edible oils since 1947. It argued that the defendants’ adoption of an identical mark for identical goods was dishonest, calculated to trade upon its goodwill, and squarely attracted infringement under Section 29(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act.

Defendants: The defendants claimed user rights from 2010 but failed to lead evidence substantiating lawful or prior use. No credible defence was placed on record to justify adoption of the impugned mark.

Reasoning and Analysis

Justice Arif S. Doctor found that the marks used by Lotus Refinery were visually, phonetically, and structurally identical to Bunge India’s registered word and label marks, and were used for identical goods falling in the same class. Applying Section 29(2)(c), the Court held that infringement was made out per se.

The Court also upheld the claim of passing off, noting Bunge India’s continuous use since 1947 and the absence of any credible explanation from the defendants. It observed that the failure to conduct even a basic trademark search before adopting the identical mark pointed to dishonest adoption and an intent to ride on the plaintiff’s goodwill.

The defendants’ non-participation in the trial despite service further reinforced the inference of mala fides. Even assuming the defendants’ claimed user date, the Court held that such use was subsequent to Bunge India’s registration and long-standing use, conferring no legal rights.

Decision

The Bombay High Court permanently restrained Lotus Refinery Pvt. Ltd. and its associate entities from using the “LOTUS” mark, the trade name “LOTUS Refineries,” or any domain name incorporating the mark in relation to edible oils. The Court also directed each restrained company to pay ₹5 lakh as costs to Bunge India, affirming that identical marks for identical goods cannot coexist under trademark law.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Ms. Rashmi Thakur Iyer i/b. M/s. J.G.B. & Daruwalla.