Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Maharashtra Single Bench of Justice N J Jamadar, on December 3, 2025, partly allowed an interim injunction application in a trademark infringement suit between a plastic packaging manufacturer and a rival engaged in similar goods. The Court directed that the defendant and its associates be restrained from using the marks “CHEMCO” and “CHEMCO PLAST” as trademarks in relation to plastic bottles, caps and other plastic packing materials, or any identical or deceptively similar mark, pending trial. At the same time, noting the defendant’s long and concurrent presence in the market, the Court declined to restrain the continued use of “Chemco” as part of its trade name and domain name, and rejected the remaining prayers for interim relief.

The applicant, a company manufacturing plastic goods under the trademark “CHEMCO,” filed an interim application seeking to restrain the defendant partnership firm from using the marks “CHEMCO,” “CHEMCO PLAST,” and the domain name containing “chemcoplast.” The applicant claimed prior use dating back to its predecessor-in-title from 1973 and relied on later trademark registrations under multiple classes. It asserted that the defendant’s use of the impugned mark caused confusion, constituted infringement, and amounted to passing off. The applicant referenced cease-and-desist notices issued in 2015 and correspondence from customers indicating confusion.

Also Read: Selection Criteria Cannot Be Altered After Final Evaluation Stage; Supreme Court Dismisses J&K Services Selection Board Appeal On Post-Interview Change In Forester Recruitment Criteria

The defendant disputed the applicant’s claim of earliest use, asserting its own predecessor’s adoption of “CHEMCO” in 1977, and argued that both parties had coexisted for years with overlapping business interactions. It contended that its use was honest, continuous, and only as a trade name, and raised defences of delay, laches, and acquiescence. The defendant referenced invoices, regulatory approvals, partnership documents, and website/domain registrations to support its position.

The dispute involved issues under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, including infringement under sub-sections (1), (2), (4), and (5), as well as the law of passing off and the relevance of prior user.

The Court recorded that the dispute centred on “the question as to who of the parties is prior user of the mark ‘CHEMCO’” and whether either party could claim the benefit of purported prior user through its predecessors. It noted that the plaintiff’s documents “prima facie appear to be of no avail” because they did not establish use of the mark by predecessors. The Court observed, “the assignment or transfer as such of the trade mark/name ‘CHEMCO’ is prima facie not evident” and that incorporation as “Net-Guard Polynet Pvt. Ltd.” “runs counter to the claim” that the business of the predecessor firm was consolidated into the plaintiff.

It further stated that “the link in respect of user of CHEMCO between the Plaintiff and its predecessor-in-interest was snapped” due to lack of documentary assignment and continued existence of the predecessor firm. The Court held that the plaintiff “prima facie failed to establish the nexus between the predecessor-in-interest of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.”

On the defendant’s use, the Court recorded material showing that the defendant had “used and/or attempted to use ‘CHEMCO’ as a mark” and even asserted such use in earlier proceedings, which meant the plaintiff established a prima facie case of infringement.

In evaluating passing off, the Court stated that goodwill must exist at the time the defendant began the complained-of conduct, noting that “the material on record, prima facie, does not indicate that by the time the Defendant commenced the use of CHEMCO i.e. 1999, the Plaintiff had established a formidable goodwill and reputation.” Thus, misrepresentation could not be inferred.

On acquiescence, the Court discussed correspondence, association memberships, and online presence, observing that these factors “may warrant adjudication at the trial.” The Court noted that the defendant’s use was “neither dishonest nor negligent.”

Also Read: Bombay High Court Dismisses Cross Petitions, Upholds ₹96.20 Lakh Award Against TCS In Server Supply Dispute With Inspira

Regarding balance of convenience, the Court stated that multiple factors—including “the period of user… almost parallel,” long coexistence, and absence of dishonest use—required a calibrated approach. It concluded that a distinction must be drawn between use of the mark as a trademark and use as a trade name, observing that “a blanket order of injunction may not be justifiable.”

The Court ordered that “the Interim Application stands partly allowed. Pending disposal of the suit, the defendant and all persons acting on its behalf “are restrained from infringing all or any of the Applicant’s Mark CHEMCO… by use of the impugned mark CHEMCO, and/or CHEMCO PLAST or any other trade mark which is identical with and/or deceptively similar to the Applicant’s registered Mark CHEMCO in respect of the impugned goods including plastic bottles, caps for plastic bottles and other plastic packing materials and/or same or similar goods or services or in any other manner whatsoever.”

 “Rest of the prayers in the Application stand rejected. The execution and operation of this order is stayed for a period of six weeks.”

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Plaintiff/Applicant: Dr. Veerendra Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate; Hiren Kamod; Farhad Sorabjee; Pratik Pawar; Siddhesh S. Pradhan; Meher Mistri; Aneez Patel, instructed by J. Sagar Associates
For the Defendant/Respondent: Mr. Rashmin Khandeka; Anand Mohan; Maitri Asher; I.K. Paranjape, instructed by W.S. Kane & Co

Case Title: Chemco Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Chemco Plast
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-OS:23282
Case Number: Interim Application No. 2165 of 2024 in Commercial IP Suit No. 80 of 2024
Bench: Justice N. J. Jamadar