Introduction:
This analytical legal article examines a key intellectual property enforcement dispute before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay concerning trademark infringement, passing off, and the grant of ad-interim injunctive relief alongside cross-border jurisdictional leave. The litigation arose out of a commercial conflict in the luxury goods, cosmetics, and fragrance market. The proceedings centered on whether the adoption of a deceptively similar formative mark, paired with an unauthorized website domain name and social media handles, constitutes infringement of well-established registered trademarks, thereby justifying immediate interim restraints and court receiver seizure orders. The Court delivered a comprehensive order granting ad-interim relief and establishing crucial execution mechanisms under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Factual and Procedural Background:
The dispute traces back to Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 20200 of 2026 filed by Bagzone Lifestyles Private Limited against Shweta Agrawal, an individual operating out of Agra, Uttar Pradesh. The applicant, incorporated in 2008, established itself as a reputed enterprise in manufacturing, marketing, and retailing luxury goods, beauty products, perfumes, colognes, and non-leather accessories. The applicant conceived, coined, and adopted the mark LAVIE in 2009, continuously using it since at least July 2010.
On August 28, 2009, the applicant applied for and secured registration of the word mark LAVIE under registration number 1856023 in Class 18 under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, covering various luggage items, bags, satchels, card cases, and leather accessories on a proposed-to-be-used basis. To expand its commercial presence, the applicant devised various formative marks incorporating LAVIE as a dominant feature. These included registrations for the mark LAVIE in Class 9 under registration number 3477520 on February 8, 2017, and in Class 14 under registration number 2319266 in April 2012. Furthermore, for cosmetics, fragrances, and perfumery in Class 3, the applicant secured registrations for the label mark under registration number 6056982 on August 8, 2023, the word mark LAVIE LUXE under registration number 6088369 on August 29, 2023, and the word mark LAVIE SPORT under registration number 6088370 on August 29, 2023. The applicant demonstrated substantial commercial growth, with revenue escalating from INR 49,22,719 in the financial year 2009-10 to an unaudited figure of INR 2,87,52,99,197 in the financial year 2025-26.
In the first week of November 2025, the applicant discovered that the defendant was using, marketing, and selling perfumes and colognes online under the mark LAVIE LUXURY. The defendant operated an e-commerce website at https://www.lavieluxury.in and maintained social media profiles on Meta platforms to market these products. The applicant filed Leave Petition No. 211 of 2026 under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent of the Bombay High Court to combine the cause of action for passing off with the infringement suit, as well as Interim Application (L) No. 20382 of 2026 seeking urgent ad-interim injunctions. Notice was served on the defendant on July 1, 2026, and despite the Court granting an explicit adjournment on July 3, 2026, to allow an additional opportunity to contest, the defendant failed to appear or file an affidavit-in-reply. Consequently, the proceedings were taken up on July 7, 2026, with the uncontroverted pleadings on record.
Dispute Before the Court:
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the defendant's adoption and commercial use of the mark LAVIE LUXURY, the domain name https://www.lavieluxury.in, and associated social media handles constituted infringement and passing off of the applicant's registered trademarks LAVIE, LAVIE LUXE, and LAVIE SPORT. Another crucial issue was whether the Court should exercise its powers under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent of the Bombay High Court to grant leave to combine causes of action, alongside issuing search, seizure, and inventory directions through Court Receivers under Order XL Rule 1 and Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The applicant contended that the mark LAVIE LUXURY was identical or deceptively similar to its prior registered formative marks. The applicant highlighted that the word LAVIE is a dominant and essential feature of its entire brand identity. The applicant argued that the defendant's use of a domain name incorporating this identical brand name for identical and cognate goods such as perfumes and colognes was a calculated attempt to capitalize on the goodwill and reputation painstakingly built over decades.
Because the defendant failed to appear or submit any written response despite receiving notice, no counter-arguments were presented on her behalf. Consequently, the factual assertions, registration documents, and commercial figures submitted by the applicant remained unchallenged.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Court:
The Court evaluated the uncontroverted Plaint, Leave Petition, and Interim Application. In examining Leave Petition No. 211 of 2026 filed under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent of the Bombay High Court, the Court found the grounds set out in the petition sufficient and allowed the request, granting leave to combine the cause of action for passing off with the action for trademark infringement.
Turning to the substantive assessment under Interim Application (L) No. 20382 of 2026, the Court conducted a structural comparison between the competing marks. The Court noted that a simple examination of the mark LAVIE LUXURY used by the defendant showed that it was identical or deceptively similar to the applicant's registered word marks LAVIE, LAVIE LUXE, and LAVIE SPORT, as well as its registered label marks in Class 3 and Class 18. The Court held that the inclusion of the word LUXURY alongside the dominant element LAVIE created a direct visual, phonetic, and structural similarity that was bound to cause consumer confusion, especially given that both parties operated in the same trade channel concerning fragrances, perfumes, and colognes.
To ensure effective enforcement against an out-of-state defendant based in Agra, Uttar Pradesh, the Court invoked its powers under Order XL Rule 1 and Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Recognizing the practical necessity of swift local execution, the Court established a dual receiver mechanism. While appointing the Court Receiver, High Court of Bombay, the Court also exercised its discretion to appoint an Additional Special Receiver located in Mumbai to assist and execute the commission directly. The Court fixed the remuneration of the Additional Special Receiver at INR 35,000 per day or part thereof, payable initially by the applicant with liberty to recover it as suit costs later.
The Court prescribed clear procedural operational safeguards for executing the search and seizure commission. The Additional Special Receiver was authorized to visit all premises, factories, godowns, and shops of the defendant, break open locks if necessary, seek local police assistance, and seize all offending goods, dies, cartons, molds, printing equipment, and materials bearing the mark LAVIE LUXURY. Local police authorities were explicitly directed to act upon the production of the court order and letters of authority issued by the Court Receiver. Furthermore, the Court directed that the seized goods remain stored at the defendant's premises under seal until further directions. The Court mandated compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 within fourteen days following the execution of the commission, and dispensed with Rule 596 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980 to ensure expedited implementation.
Final Decision of the Court:
inclusive of prayer clauses (a) through (e). The defendant, along with her agents and representatives, was restrained by a temporary injunction from using the mark LAVIE LUXURY, the domain name https://www.lavieluxury.in, or any other mark deceptively similar to the applicant's registered trademarks LAVIE, LAVIE LUXE, and LAVIE SPORT in relation to perfumes, colognes, or allied goods. The injunction extended to prohibiting acts of passing off and manufacturing, selling, advertising, or dealing in products carrying the impugned mark.
The Court allowed Leave Petition No. 211 of 2026 under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent. The Court appointed the Court Receiver, High Court of Bombay, alongside an Additional Special Receiver, granting them full powers under Order XL Rule 1 and Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (excluding the power of sale) to search premises, break open locks, seize infringing stock, and make an inventory with mandatory local police support. The defendant was directed to deliver up all infringing materials, packaging, and literature for destruction, and to disclose on oath all revenue generated from the impugned mark along with income tax returns from the year 2025 onwards. The ad-interim orders were directed to continue until September 23, 2026, with the Additional Special Receiver ordered to submit a report by September 8, 2026, and the Court Receiver to file a report by September 21, 2026.
Point of Law Settled:
This judgment reaffirms that where a defendant adopts a registered trademark's dominant and essential feature in combination with a descriptive or generic term for identical goods, such adoption constitutes clear visual and phonetic deceptive similarity warranting immediate ad-interim injunctive relief.
Furthermore, the decision highlights the court's dynamic approach in executing ex-parte and ad-interim search and seizure orders across state jurisdictions under Order XL Rule 1 and Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. By appointing an Additional Special Receiver and issuing binding directives to local police authorities in another state, the High Court established an efficient legal blueprint to prevent the dissipation of infringing goods and preserve critical evidence in digital and physical commerce.
Case Details:
Title of the Case: Bagzone Lifestyles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shweta Agrawal
Date of Judgment: July 7, 2026
Case Number: Interim Application (L) No. 20382 of 2026 in Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 20200 of 2026 with Leave Petition No. 211 of 2026
Neutral Citation: CNR No. HCBM020202002026
Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Justice Madhav J. Jamdar
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation .
Headnote of the Judgment:
Bagzone Lifestyles Pvt. Ltd. v. Shweta Agrawal, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Interim Application (L) No. 20382 of 2026 in Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 20200 of 2026 with Leave Petition No. 211 of 2026, Decision Dated July 7, 2026. Interim Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2, Order XL Rule 1, Order XXXIX Rule 7 CPC, and Clause XIV Letters Patent seeking ad-interim injunction and seizure order against unauthorized use of mark LAVIE LUXURY and domain name lavieluxury.in. Uncontroverted pleadings established prior registered rights over LAVIE formative marks. Court granted Leave Petition, issued ad-interim injunctions against infringement and passing off, appointed Additional Special Receiver for ex-parte search and seizure in Agra with police assistance, and directed disclosure of revenue. Application allowed.
Suggested SEO Tags:
Bagzone Lifestyles v Shweta Agrawal, Bombay High Court Lavie Trademark, Lavie Luxury Injunction Order, Clause XIV Letters Patent Bombay, Order 39 Rule 7 CPC Seizure, Additional Special Court Receiver, Trademark Infringement Perfumes Colognes, Ex Parte Search and Seizure Agra, Uncontroverted Interim Application CPC, Domain Name Infringement Lavieluxury, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor
Suggested SEO Titles:
Bombay High Court Restrains LAVIE LUXURY in Trademark Infringement Suit Bagzone Lifestyles vs Shweta Agrawal: Injunction and Court Receiver Order Execution of Search and Seizure Orders Under Order 39 Rule 7 CPC Combining Passing Off and Infringement Under Clause 14 Letters Patent How Courts Handle Uncontroverted Injunction Applications in IP Matters Bombay High Court Directs Police Assistance for Out-of-State IP Seizures Protecting Formative Marks: Legal Analysis of LAVIE vs LAVIE LUXURY Role of Additional Special Receivers in Enforcement of Trademark Suits Interim Injunctions Against E-Commerce Domain Names and Meta Handles Legal Insights into Trademark Infringement in Luxury and Fragrance Sector
In Bagzone Lifestyles Pvt. Ltd. v. Shweta Agrawal, decided on July 7, 2026 under Case Number Interim Application (L) No. 20382 of 2026 in Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 20200 of 2026 with Leave Petition No. 211 of 2026 with Neutral Citation CNR No. HCBM020202002026, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, comprising Justice Madhav J. Jamdar, granted ad-interim injunctive reliefs and appointed an Additional Special Receiver to execute search and seizure directions against the infringing mark LAVIE LUXURY.
