Delhi Commercial Court: Andhra Trader Restrained From Using ‘Lakshmi Plasto’; RC Plasto Awarded ₹2 Lakh Damages For Trademark Infringement
Pranav B Prem
A Delhi Commercial Court has restrained an Andhra Pradesh-based trader from using the mark “Lakshmi Plasto”, finding it deceptively similar to the mark “Plasto” used by RC Plasto Tanks & Pipes Pvt. Ltd., a Nagpur-based manufacturer of water tanks and pipes. In an order dated October 30, 2025, District Judge (Commercial) Anuradha Shukla of the Saket Courts also awarded Rs 2 lakh in damages to RC Plasto, holding that the defendant’s use of the mark amounted to trademark infringement.
Background
The plaintiff, RC Plasto Tanks & Pipes Pvt. Ltd., incorporated in 1981, manufactures and sells water storage tanks, PVC pipes, fittings, and allied products under the trademark “Plasto.” The company claimed to be the prior adopter and continuous user of the mark since 1981 and holds multiple registrations of the mark across different classes. It also owns domain names plasto.in and rcplasto.in, and markets its products nationwide, including through Amazon, Flipkart, and IndiaMART. The plaintiff asserted that the word “Plasto” was a unique, coined term, having acquired distinctiveness and public recognition through long-standing use and extensive advertising campaigns, including celebrity endorsements by actor Hrithik Roshan.
The dispute arose in August 2022, when RC Plasto discovered that the defendant, Srilakshmi Nalubolu, proprietor of Lakshmi Plasto in Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, was manufacturing and selling identical goods under the mark “Lakshmi Plasto.” It was found that the defendant had applied for registration of the mark “Lakshmi Plasto” under Application No. 4954740, and also launched a website — lakshmiplasto.com — to promote the products. The plaintiff claimed that this was a deliberate imitation aimed at trading on the goodwill and reputation associated with its brand “Plasto.”
Defendant’s case
The defendant contended that it had been using the mark “Lakshmi Plasto” since 2020, had established its own goodwill and reputation, and that “Plasto” was a generic term derived from the word “plastic.” It also argued that the visual presentation, font style, and color combination of its mark were distinct, and therefore, no likelihood of confusion existed. The defendant further claimed that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts, and that the mark “Plasto” was non-distinctive and common to trade, adding that one of the plaintiff’s earlier trademark applications had been refused by the Trademark Registry.
Court’s Observations
The court found that RC Plasto was the prior user of the mark since 1981, whereas the defendant had adopted “Lakshmi Plasto” only in 2020. The defendant failed to produce any credible evidence to show distinctiveness or continuous use of the mark. Judge Shukla held that the dominant element “Plasto” was identical in both marks, and that the defendant’s adoption was likely to cause confusion among consumers. “Though the trade design of the defendant appears different from that of the plaintiff, the defendant is also using the word ‘Plasto’ prominently alongside ‘Lakshmi.’ In such depiction, the mark appears deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff; ‘Plasto’ being dominantly common in both trademarks,” the court observed.
Rejecting the argument that “Plasto” was a generic term, the court relied on the Delhi High Court’s decision in Automatic Electric Ltd. v. R.K. Dhawan (1999), holding that a party that itself applies for registration of a term cannot later claim that it is generic. “Since the defendant’s own case is that it got the word ‘Plasto’ registered, it cannot take a plea that the word is generic to the trade and therefore cannot be registered,” the court held. The court concluded that the plaintiff had established continuous and bona fide use of the mark “Plasto” and was entitled to protection under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Relief Granted
The court confirmed the interim injunction granted in November 2022, making it permanent, thereby restraining the defendant from using, selling, promoting, or advertising any goods under the mark “Lakshmi Plasto” or any deceptively similar mark. Citing precedents from Jockey International Inc. v. R. Chandra Mohan and Hero Honda Motors Ltd. v. Shree Assuramji Scooters, the court also observed that damages must be awarded even when defendants choose not to participate in proceedings. Accordingly, the court awarded Rs 2,00,000 in damages to RC Plasto for the economic and commercial loss suffered due to the defendant’s infringing acts. “Plaintiff is entitled to lump sum damages of Rs. 2,00,000 on account of the economic and commercial advantage which the defendant tried to gain at the expense of the enviable reputation created by the plaintiff,” the court stated.
Cause Title: R C Plasto Tanks & Pipes Pvt ltd. v. Srilakshmi Nalubolu
Case No: CS (COMM) 638/2022
Coram: Anuradha Shukla [District Judge (Commercial)]
