### Introduction
The case of Ceat Limited vs Ramu Kushwha, adjudicated by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, delves into a significant intellectual property dispute involving trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. The plaintiff, Ceat Limited, a prominent manufacturer of automotive tyres with a legacy dating back to 1924, sought to protect its well-known trademark "CEAT" and associated artistic works against the defendants, Ramu Kushwha and another, who allegedly used deceptively similar marks such as "CREATA," "CATE," and "CAT" for identical goods. This interim application, decided on August 12, 2025, builds upon an earlier ex-parte ad-interim relief granted in October 2023, addressing the defendants' objections on jurisdiction, non-infringement, and the maintainability of the passing off action. The judgment underscores the protection of established trademarks and the legal implications of using similar marks in the marketplace.
### Factual Background
Ceat Limited traces its origins to 1924 when Ceat SpA was established in Italy, with Ceat Gomma SpA commencing the sale of pneumatic and solid tyres under the trademark "CEAT"—an acronym for the Italian phrase "Electric Cables and Allied Products of Turin"—since 1951. The plaintiff, incorporated in India in 1958 as Ceat Tyres of India Limited, began manufacturing and marketing tyres under a license from Ceat SpA in 1960. Through assignments in 1978 and 2010, Ceat Limited acquired full rights to the "CEAT" trademark globally, operating over 450 retail outlets across India. The company holds registrations for the "CEAT" word mark since 1961, label mark since 1987, and logo since 2020, with a turnover exceeding Rs. 11,088 crores and promotional expenses over Rs. 21,235 crores in 2022-2023. The defendants were found selling tyre tubes under marks "CREATA" and "CATE," later amended to include "CAT," using packaging deceptively similar to Ceat's artistic label, prompting this legal action.
### Procedural Background
The plaintiff initiated Commercial IP Suit No. 311 of 2023, with Interim Application No. 4131 of 2025 filed to enforce and amend earlier reliefs. An ex-parte ad-interim order was granted on October 20, 2023, restraining the defendants from using the impugned marks, executed by the Court Receiver, which uncovered the additional mark "CAT." The defendants raised objections via a reply affidavit, challenging jurisdiction and alleging non-infringement. The plaintiff sought leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent to combine causes of action, which was granted. Arguments were heard, with the matter reserved on July 30, 2025, and the order pronounced on August 12, 2025, by Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh.
### Core Dispute
The central dispute revolves around whether the defendants' use of "CREATA," "CATE," and "CAT" constitutes infringement of the plaintiff's registered "CEAT" trademark and copyright in its artistic label, as well as passing off their goods as those of the plaintiff. Key issues include the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court, given the defendants' alleged lack of business in Mumbai, the defendants' contention that "CEAT" is a common English word or publici juris, and the distinction between the parties' products—tyres versus butyl tubes. The plaintiff asserts its well-known status and prior use, while the defendants argue no confusion arises due to different product categories and the absence of sales within the court's jurisdiction.
### Discussion on Judgments
The parties and court relied on several precedents to frame their arguments. The plaintiff referenced N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation, (1996) 5 SCC 714, to assert that a well-known trademark's goodwill extends beyond registered goods, supporting its claim against the defendants' use of similar marks. The defendants did not cite specific judgments but implied reliance on cases like American Home Products Corporation v. Mac Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1986 SC 137, in arguing that descriptive marks lack exclusivity, though this was not directly pleaded. The court drew on Kirloskar Diesel Recon Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd., AIR 1996 Bom 149, to establish that territorial jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, is valid where the plaintiff carries on business, reinforcing the court's authority. Additionally, the court considered Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah, (2002) 3 SCC 65, to affirm that passing off actions protect goodwill irrespective of product differences, supporting the plaintiff's case.
### Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh analyzed the plaintiff's established goodwill and reputation in the "CEAT" trademark, recognized as well-known by judicial orders and the Registrar of Trade Marks since 2020. The court found the defendants' marks "CREATA," "CATE," and "CAT" deceptively similar, likely causing confusion among consumers, despite the defendants' claim of selling butyl tubes versus the plaintiff's tyres. The judge rejected the defendants' jurisdictional challenge, affirming the court's authority under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, due to the plaintiff's registered office in Mumbai. The argument that "CEAT" is a common word was dismissed, given its coined nature and the plaintiff's extensive use since 1951. The court also upheld the copyright infringement claim, noting the defendants' imitation of the plaintiff's artistic label packaging, and found the passing off action maintainable based on potential market confusion.
### Final Decision
The court upheld the ex-parte ad-interim order dated October 20, 2023, and the amended relief concerning the "CAT" mark. It restrained the defendants, Ramu Kushwha and another, from using "CREATA," "CATE," "CAT," or any deceptively similar marks or artistic works infringing the plaintiff's "CEAT" trademark and copyright. The defendants' objections on jurisdiction and non-infringement were overruled, with the interim reliefs continuing pending final adjudication.
### Law Settled in This Case
This judgment clarifies that a well-known trademark's protection extends to similar marks used for identical or related goods, irrespective of minor product category differences, under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It reaffirms that territorial jurisdiction is established where the plaintiff carries on business, as per Section 134(2), and that coined marks, even if acronym-based, are entitled to exclusivity if supported by long-standing use and goodwill. The decision also establishes that imitation of artistic label packaging constitutes copyright infringement, and passing off actions are maintainable based on potential consumer confusion, reinforcing the sanctity of intellectual property rights.
### Case Details
Case Title: Ceat Limited vs Ramu Kushwha & Anr.
Date of Order: 12 August, 2025
Case Number: Interim Application No. 4131 of 2025 in Commercial IP Suit No. 311 of 2023
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:13264
Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Commercial Division
Name of Judge: Sharmila U. Deshmukh
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Here are various suitable titles for this article for publication in a Law Journal:
1. Protecting Well-Known Trademarks: Insights from Ceat Limited v. Ramu Kushwha
2. Trademark Infringement and Copyright: The Bombay High Court's Ruling on "CEAT"
3. Jurisdictional Boundaries in IP Disputes: Analyzing Ceat Limited vs Ramu Kushwha
4. Passing Off and Deceptive Similarity: The Ceat Case Study in Trademark Law
5. Coined Marks and Goodwill: Judicial Interpretation in Ceat Limited v. Ramu Kushwha
6. Artistic Label Protection: Copyright Implications in the Ceat Trademark Dispute
7. Ex-Parte Reliefs in IP Litigation: Lessons from the Bombay High Court
8. Balancing Trade Mark Exclusivity and Publici Juris Claims: The Ceat Judgment Explored
