Kerala High Court Grants Interim Protection To ‘Bokashi Bucket’ Mark, Bars Sale Of Identical Compost Bins
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice S Manu, on November 18, 2025, ordered a temporary injunction restraining a Kozhikode-based enterprise from manufacturing, marketing or selling compost bins under the name “Bokashi Bucket”. The Court found that “Bokashi Bucket” is a registered trade mark held by a Kannur-based company engaged in waste-management products and that the rival product used the same mark for identical goods. Treating the dispute as one of alleged trade mark infringement and passing off between the proprietor of the registered mark and a competing trader, the Bench directed that the latter desist from using the impugned mark pending trial. In doing so, the Court set aside an order of the Additional District Court, Manjeri, which had declined interim protection.
The appellant, proprietor of a business engaged in manufacturing compost bins, filed an appeal challenging the order dated 23.08.2025 by the Additional District Court-I, Manjeri, which had dismissed his application for interim injunction. He asserted that he holds trademark registrations for the trade name and mark “BOKASHI BUCKET,” and that the compost bin design is registered under the Designs Act, 2000. He stated that the product converts biodegradable waste into manure and has significant market presence, with purchases made by Suchitwa Mission and local authorities.
He alleged that distributors detected an identical product sold by the respondent, claiming it copied the design, shape, configuration, get-up and features of his product and used the registered mark “BOKASHI BUCKET,” amounting to infringement. The respondent opposed the injunction, contending absence of novelty, concealment of facts, pendency of a rectification petition, descriptive nature of the term “BOKASHI BUCKET,” prior use since 2013, and claimed ineffective registration due to the appellant’s failure to file a counter-statement in the rectification proceedings.
Evidence included the Advocate Commissioner’s report, documents marked Exts.A1 to A6 for the appellant and Exts.R1 to R100 for the respondent. The appeal was confined to alleged infringement of the registered trademark, relying primarily on Sections 23, 28 and 29 of the Trade Marks Act.
The Court recorded that the appellant had obtained trademark registrations for “BOKASHI BUCKET” and that “the products of the appellant and the respondent in the instant case are identical.” It noted that the respondent “also admittedly uses the term ‘BOKASHI BUCKET’ to describe his product.”
The Court observed that as long as the registration remains valid, “the rights conferred on account of the registration will be available to the appellant.” It stated that when the circumstances under Section 29 arise, “the appellant can definitely contend that there is infringement of its registered trade mark.”
On the respondent’s argument that failure to file a counter-statement caused the registration to cease, the Court recorded: “No other consequence is provided in the Rule. There is no provision in the Act also which provides for deemed annulment of the registration…” It stated that the contention that registration became inoperative “cannot be accepted.”
Referencing the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Sections 28 and 29, the Court quoted: “when the trade mark of the defendant is identical with the registered trade mark of the plaintiff and that the goods … are identical…, the Court shall presume that it is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public.” It further quoted: “if the essential features of the trade mark of the plaintiff have been adopted by the defendant… the same would be immaterial in a case of infringement.”
The Court recorded that the Supreme Court held that in infringement, “an injunction would be issued as soon as it is proved that the defendant is improperly using the plaintiff’s mark.” It therefore stated, regarding this case: “the respondent is admittedly using the term 'BOKASHI BUCKET' which is registered as its trade mark by the appellant.”
The Court observed that the situation falls within Section 29(2)(c), noting: “the case definitely falls within the ambit of sub section (2)(c) … Therefore, this Court has to presume that confusion is likely to be caused.”
It identified no material supporting the respondent’s allegations of suppression, stating: “those allegations have been effectively denied … I am also satisfied that the normal considerations relevant in the matter of granting temporary injunctions weigh in favour of the appellant.”
The Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the application for temporary injunction. It directed that “I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No.2 of 2025 of the Additional District Court, Manjeri, is allowed.”
“The respondent, his men, agents or anybody acting or claiming under him are restrained by temporary injunction from manufacturing and selling or promoting Compost Bins as illustrated in the schedule to I.A.No.1 of 2025 in this FAO by infringing or passing of the registered trade mark ‘BOKASHI BUCKET’ till the disposal of the suit. Appeal is allowed as above. Parties to suffer respective costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant/Petitioner: Sri. P. Martin Jose, Sri. K.M. Jamaludheen, Sri. P. Prijith, Sri. Thomas P. Kuruvilla, Sri. R. Githesh, Shri. Ajay Ben Jose, Sri. Manjunath Menon, Shri. Sachin Jacob Ambat, Smt. Anna Linda Eden, Shri. Harikrishnan S., Smt. Anavadya Sanil Kumar, Smt. Anjali Krishna, Sri. S. Sreekumar (Sr.)
For the Respondent: Sri. K. Mohammed Rafeeq, Shri. P.P. Abdul Sageer, Sri. Bibin Mathew, Sri. P.M. Mathew, Sri. Amarnath R. Lal, Shri. Sanaldev E.P., Smt. Vishnumaya Anandan, Shri. Sonymon Antony, Smt. Shifana M., Smt. Fida P., Shri. Abhijith P.A.
Case Title: Rajeev K P v. Unais K.K.
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:87639
Case Number: FAO No.118 of 2025
Bench: Justice S. Manu
