Bombay High Court Upholds Injunction Restraining Nagpur Bidi Manufacturer From Using Packaging Deceptively Similar To ‘Online Bidi’
Isabella Mariam
The Bombay High Court at Nagpur, Single Bench of Justice Rohit W. Joshi upheld an earlier order restraining a Nagpur-based bidi manufacturer, Rocket Bidi Works, from using its “ATM Bidi No.07” packaging, holding that it closely resembled the trade dress and design of Mobile Bidi Traders’ “Online Bidi.” The Court found that the “ATM Bidi” packets imitated the distinctive blue colour scheme and overall layout of the “Online Bidi” label, likely misleading ordinary consumers. Dismissing the appeal, Justice Joshi affirmed the trial court’s August 12 order that had granted interim protection to Mobile Bidi Traders’ registered trademark and copyright, observing that no sufficient ground existed to interfere with the lower court’s discretionary injunction.
The dispute arose between two Nagpur-based bidi manufacturers engaged in the production and sale of handmade bidis and related tobacco products. The plaintiff, a partnership firm operating under the brand “Online Bidi,” claimed to have registered its trademark and copyright for its label and artistic design under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the Copyright Act, 1957. The firm asserted that its packaging—featuring a distinct blue colour scheme and conical design—was well-known in the market and commonly recognized as “Asmani Puda.” It alleged that the defendant, operating as Rocket Bidi Works under the brand “ATM Bidi No.07,” adopted a deceptively similar trade dress and colour pattern, likely to mislead consumers into believing that both products originated from the same source.
The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendant from using the allegedly infringing mark and packaging during the pendency of its trademark suit. The defendant opposed the application, contending that its design and mark were distinct, emphasizing differences in layout, text placement, and label structure. It claimed to have modified its earlier design to avoid any similarity and argued that the trial court failed to consider these changes. The defendant also raised an objection regarding statutory compliance, asserting that the plaintiff’s packaging did not carry the mandatory health warning required under Rule 3(e) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Rules, 2008, framed under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003.
In response, the plaintiff maintained that the statutory warnings were printed on the bidi bundles sold at the retail level, consistent with regulatory requirements. Both parties submitted samples of their respective packaging and trade dress for comparison.
The Court stated that the appeal was governed by the principles in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd., noting that “the present appeal cannot be heard like as a first appeal… The scope… will be restricted to ascertain as to whether the learned trial Court has decided the application… having regard to the legal principles governing interlocutory injunctions.” It recorded that the plaintiff’s trademark and copyright were undisputed and that “comparison of Bidi bundles is required to be made rather than comparison of the packet in which Bidi bundles are sold by wholesalers to retailers.” The Court noted that “the end consumer will normally purchase Bidis in bundles or loose bidis and not the packet in which the bundles are packed.”
The Court observed that both parties’ bidi bundles carried statutory health warnings and that “both the bundles have a blue colour conical hash, in which the trade names are mentioned.” It recorded that “the Bidi bundles do appear to be similar due to the conical blue flash design.” The trial court’s prima facie satisfaction that the defendant’s trademark was deceptively similar was held consistent with governing precedent, with the Court stating: “the learned trial Court… has arrived at prima facie satisfaction that the trademark of the defendant is deceptively similar… The observations… appear to be in consonance with the law laid down in… ITC Limited.”
Regarding consumer perception, the Court recorded that the end consumer “is generally a person coming from relatively uneducated and poor class… likely to be confused by the similarity in the design.” It noted that distinguishing features pointed out by the defendant concerned mostly the external wholesale packet and stated that such arguments could not be accepted because “distinguishing features… should not be given much weight if, on overall view… broad similarities emerge that are sufficient to create confusion.”
The Court considered the allegation of non-compliance with packaging rules, noting that although “perusal of the external packaging of the plaintiff does not disclose specified health warning,” the bundles themselves carry the warning. It referred to Sections 7, 14, 15, and 20 of the Act of 2003 and stated that even accepting the alleged breach, “the consequence… will also have to be taken into consideration.” It observed that even after confiscation, the law permits release upon compliance and therefore “the alleged breach… will not itself be ground for setting aside the order of temporary injunction.” It finally noted that “it is not the case of the defendant that the authorities… have taken any action.”
The Court recorded: “In light of the aforesaid, in the considered opinion of this Court, no case for interference is made out. The appeal is therefore, liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. S. Zia Quazi, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. D.V. Chauhan, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. A.D. Chaudhari, Advocate
Case Title: Ifra Sheikh v. M/s Mobile Bidi Traders
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-NAG:11393
Case Number: Appeal Against Order No.19 of 2025
Bench: Justice Rohit W. Joshi
