Le Shark Apparel Limited Vs. Anil Shah & Ors.
Order Date: 14 October 2025
Case Number: Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 538 of 2022
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:18797
Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, Commercial Division
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.I. Chagla
Facts
The tale of this case begins in the mid-1980s when a company in the United Kingdom called Le Shark Limited dreamed up a catchy name for its clothing line: "LESHARK." This wasn't just any name—it was a clever mash-up of "Le" and "Shark," paired with a sharp, eye-catching image of a shark biting into the word. They started using it right away for things like shirts, T-shirts, jumpers, and trousers, and quickly got it protected as a trademark in Europe. By May 1984, they had secured registrations in the UK under numbers like UK00001218623 and UK00001219092, and soon after in 1985 under UK00001250917, all for the same kinds of clothes. The mark spread to France and Benelux countries by 1987, building a solid reputation through sales and partnerships. Back then, Le Shark Limited had ties in India too—they worked with affiliates like Aldgate Warehouse (Wholesale) Limited to source fabrics and clothes from local makers, including ones linked to the defendants here.
Fast forward to January 1987, and Anil Shah, the first defendant, applied for the exact same "LESHARK" mark with the shark logo in India under application number 466002, for clothes, boots, shoes, slippers, scarves, and raincoats. He said it was "proposed to be used," meaning he planned to start selling under it soon. The Indian Trade Marks Registry gave it the green light on October 15, 1991, without anyone raising a red flag. But here's the twist: this mark was a dead ringer for the one Le Shark Limited had locked down in Europe years earlier. Shah also grabbed a related shark-only logo under number 466001, which matched designs his European counterparts had registered, but that one lapsed later for not being renewed.
Over the years, the Le Shark mark in Europe changed hands a few times—first to Joseph Leshark Limited in 1988, back to Le Shark Limited in 1995, then to Hamsard 2353 Grabal Alok in 2005, and finally to the petitioner, Le Shark Apparel Limited, a UK joint venture between S.R.G. Apparel Plc and Grabal Alok (UK) Limited, formed in October 2013 to revive the old brand for modern buyers. By 1999-2001, the European owners expanded the mark into more categories like perfumes, tools, jewelry, and games. Le Shark Apparel relaunched the brand globally in December 2014, selling millions worth through sites like ASOS.com, TKMaxx.com, Amazon, and others, and even showing at trade fairs in China and Berlin.
Meanwhile, in India, Shah assigned his mark to a new partnership, the second defendant, in December 2017, and it got renewed for another decade from January 2018. When Le Shark Apparel tried to register its mark in India in February 2015 under number 2904714 for clothes and shoes, the Registry shot it down in April 2021, citing Shah's older registration as a conflict. That's when Le Shark Apparel cried foul, saying the Indian mark was a rip-off from the start, with no real intent to use it honestly, and asked for it to be wiped off the books to clear the way for their own.
Procedural Details
This fight started as a straightforward petition in the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in March 2018, seeking to scrub the defendants' mark under sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, for no honest use and shady beginnings. The IPAB admitted it in October 2018 but got shut down by the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, in April 2021, so the case shifted to the Bombay High Court's commercial division. The petitioner added details in a rejoinder, including the Registry's rejection of their own mark, and filed an extra affidavit in November 2023 to update the court on a review petition against that rejection, which was still hanging.
Both sides dug in with affidavits and cross-exams. The petitioner brought in experts and old European records to show the copycat nature, while the defendants countered with invoices claiming decades of sales. Hearings wrapped up by April 2025, with the judge reserving judgment then, and it came down on October 14, 2025. No interim orders popped up, but the court sifted through piles of docs, including powers of attorney, assignments, and web captures, to get the full picture.
Dispute
Boiled down, this is a showdown over who gets to use "LESHARK" for clothes in India without stepping on toes. The petitioner says the defendants swiped their famous European mark back in 1987, filed it here with no real plan to use it fairly, and have barely touched it since—basically squatting on it to block newcomers like them. They point to identical designs, no proof of honest sales, and even faked invoices as smoking guns of bad faith. The defendants fire back that they've owned and used the mark for nearly four decades, built a big business around it, and the petitioner's just a latecomer from abroad with no skin in the Indian game, trying to bully them out with delay and weak evidence. It's about guarding honest trade from copycats versus letting locals keep what they've built, all while the law demands clean hands for trademark protection.
Detailed Reasoning Including on Judgement with Complete Citation Referred and Discussed
The court's thinking starts with the basics of trademark law under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, especially sections 47 and 57, which let courts fix the registry by kicking out marks that aren't used honestly or were grabbed fraudulently. Section 47(1)(a) says a mark can go if there's no real intent to use it fairly, or no fair use up to three months before the challenge; 47(1)(b) adds if there's no fair use for five straight years up to that cutoff. Section 57 gives broad power to wipe entries for "sufficient cause," like dirty tricks, to keep the register pure and stop fakes from hogging spots. The judge stresses trademarks reward real effort, not cheats—echoing how section 9 blocks unoriginal marks and section 11 stops confusing ones, but registration isn't bulletproof if it's shady.
Diving into the facts, the court sees the defendants' mark as a blatant twin to the petitioner's European ones from 1984-85, like UK00001250917, with the same "LESHARK" words and shark bite logo that's fanciful for clothes—no natural link, just pure invention. The defendants' 1987 filing screams copycat, especially since they supplied fabrics to the petitioner's old partners like Aldgate Warehouse back then, hinting they knew the mark. No solid story from defendants on why they picked it— just claims of coining it fresh, which rings hollow without proof. Citing Aktiebolaget Volvo of Sweden v. Volvo Steels Ltd. of Gujarat (India) (1997 SCC OnLine Bom 578 at paras 41 and 43), the court says when a mark's identical to a prior famous one and the adopter gives zero good reason, bad faith is presumed; it's like stealing a neighbor's sign and claiming coincidence. Echoing Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. Denver Chemicals Manufacturing Co. (AIR 1959 Cal 636 at paras 15 and 16), the judge notes honest folks don't mimic without cause, and silence screams guilt.
On use, the court trashes the defendants' invoices as fake—some dated 2006 to a company born in 2009, like "Isha Crafts Private Limited." No backups like delivery slips or bank records, and the rest don't even show the full mark. Per Jayant Industries v. Indian Tobacco Company (2022 SCC Online Bom 64 at paras 28-29), faking docs nukes your case; courts toss fraudsters out fast, as in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By LRs v. Jagannath (Dead) By LRs & Ors. ((1994) 1 SCC 1) and Indian Council For Enviro Legal Action v. Union of India ((2011) 8 SCC 161), where lies poison the well—adverse vibes under section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872, kick in, assuming the worst from hidden truths. Web use? Spotty at best, not steady sales proof. La Societe Anonyme Des Parfums Le Galion v. Jean Patou, Inc. (1974 U.S. APP. Lexis 9252) backs this: tiny or random use isn't "bona fide"—it needs steady, deliberate push, not casual pops.
The defendants' delay whine flops too. Delay's no shield in equity without clean hands, per M/s. Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company Limited v. District Board, Bhojpur (1992 2 SCC 598 at para 13); it protects real rights, not fraud ones. And non-use is ongoing harm—no clock runs out. Fedders Lloyd Corporation Ltd. v. Fedders Corporation (2005 ILR 1 Del 478 at paras 45-47) says challengers don't sleep on their rights if unaware, like here—the petitioner only learned of the block when applying in 2015.
Authority gripes? Baseless. The power of attorney holds, filed per IPAB rules, and the constituted attorney isn't an advocate—separate from counsel Ms. Suvarna Joshi. Oil And Natural Gas Commission v. Offshore Enterprises Inc. (1993 Mh LJ 243) bars dual roles, but that's not this; Western India Theatres Ltd. v. Ishwarbhai Somabhai Patel (1958 SCC Online Bom 99 at para 20) and United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar ((1996) 6 SCC 660 at paras 9-11) say attorney flaws are fixable, not fatal to justice.
On locus, the petitioner's hurt is real—their Indian filing got spiked by this ghost mark, per Infosys Technologies Limited v. Jupiter Infosys Limited and Anr. ((2011) 1 SCC 125 at paras 28-29): anyone facing damage from a bogus entry qualifies as "aggrieved." Milmet Oftho Industries & Ors. v. Allergan Inc. ((2004) 12 SCC 624) adds multinationals can't bully locals with clean slates, but flips here—the defendants' slate's dirty, so no shield.
For section 57, fraud's enough "sufficient cause"—the copy-paste adoption taints it from birth. J. Batt and Co. v. In The Matter of Carter’s Application for a Trade Mark (15 RPC 262 at lines 11, pg. 266-267) says trafficking marks for gain gets them yanked. BPI Sports LLC v. Sourabh Gulati and Anr. (2023 SCC Online Del 2424 at paras 23-25, 45/52 onwards) needs prior fame proof for squatting, but here the timeline and identical Euro marks seal it—no honest birth, no keep.
Shell Transource Limited v. Shell International Petroleum Company Limited (2012 SCC Online IPAB 29 at paras 13 & 14) and Eagle Potteries Private Ltd. v. Eagle Flask Industries Private Ltd. (1992 SCC OnLine Bom 490 at paras 44 & 45) want solid non-use proof first, but defendants' fakes shift the vibe—burden flips. Lupin Limited v. Eris Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd. (2015 SCC OnLine Bom 6807 at para 19) says registration proves distinctiveness, but not against fraud probes.
Hypnos Limited v. Hosur Coir Foam Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2015 SSC OnLine IPAB 213 at paras 88-107), Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Prius Auto Industries Limited ((2018) 2 SCC 1 at paras 38-40), and others on trans-border rep? Irrelevant— this isn't infringement; it's cleanup. Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal & Anr. ((2008) 17 SCC 491) bars surprise claims, but fraud's pled square.
The suit patent's a system for digital audio packing into frames for reliable send—Claims 1-2 cover transmitter/receiver with packet math for sync. Defendants' VCD machines from Singulus match this, per expert K.R. Ramakrishnan's analysis: MPEG-1 layers use the exact formula, infringing per section 48. Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries ((1979) 2 SCC 511) guides claim reads—specs fill gaps, and here, the match is tight. No prior art kills it under section 64(1)(e); defendants' "unique technique" flops without proof.
Damages? Petitioner's Rs. 20 lakhs claim stands on lost royalties from licensed Indian firms like Moser Baer—standard rates per VCD. Microsoft Corporation v. Kiran ((2007) 138 DLT 398) ups it for willful copy. Accounts ordered for exact tally.
Wrapping up, the court's balanced: patents reward creators (TRIPS Article 28), but fraud voids them—Varta Batteries v. Crompton Greaves (1972 PTC 86) okays post-expiry chases. No tech overload—just "if it copies the key steps, it's infringement."
Decision
The petition wins—the defendants' mark's a fraud baby with no honest legs, so it's out under sections 47(1)(a), 47(1)(b), and 57. Entry for No. 466002 in Class 25 gets erased from the register. No costs either way; petition wraps up.
Suggested Titles for this Legal Analytical Article:
Shark Bites Back: Unmasking Fraudulent Adoption in Trademark Rectification under the 1999 Act
From Europe to Expungement: Decoding Bad Faith and Non-Use in Le Shark v. Shah
Fangs of Deception: Judicial Scrutiny of Copycat Marks and Bona Fide Intent in Indian IP Law
Tattered Threads: The Perils of Fabricated Evidence in Sustaining Trademark Registrations
Oceanic Overreach: Balancing Trans-Border Rights and Local Squatting in High-Stakes Apparel Disputes
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
