### Case Title
Mangalam Organics Ltd Vs N Ranga Rao And Sons Pvt Ltd
### Order Date
September 3, 2025
### Case Number
Interim Application (Lodging) No. 7446 of 2025 in Commercial IP Suit No. 194 of 2025
### Neutral Citation
2025:BHC-OS:14413
### Name of Court
High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction in its Commercial Division
### Name of Judge
Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
### Analytical Summary of the Case
#### Facts
The case involves Mangalam Organics Ltd (the Plaintiff), a company dealing in camphor-based products, suing N Ranga Rao And Sons Pvt Ltd (the Defendant), another company in the fragrance and sanitary products industry, for trademark infringement and passing off. The Plaintiff claimed it created the trademark "CAMPURE" (and its stylized logo) around March 2017 for camphor-related items like deodorants, air fresheners, soaps, hair products, and sanitary toiletries where camphor is the key ingredient. The Plaintiff registered this mark in Classes 3, 4, and 5 under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, with registrations dating back to 2017, and these remain valid. To show popularity, the Plaintiff provided sales figures of over Rs. 110 crores and advertisement expenses of about Rs. 29 crores from 2017 to 2024 for products under this mark. The Plaintiff also runs a website promoting these goods.
In 2014, the Plaintiff launched a unique cone-shaped camphor product under its "MANGALAM" brand, wrapped in non-woven fabric, and started using "CAMPURE" for this in 2017. In December 2022, the Plaintiff learned the Defendant might launch a similar cone-shaped product and sent a cease-and-desist notice. The Defendant replied, denying any trademark issues and noting the Plaintiff's cone shape wasn't uniquely registered. No such product appeared from the Defendant at that time.
In July 2024, while checking trademark records, the Plaintiff discovered the Defendant's registration for "AIR KARPURE" (No. 4732154, dated November 4, 2020, in Class 5, on a proposed-to-be-used basis) and similar device marks. The Defendant's website (www.karpure.in) showed use of "AIR KARPURE" (with "AIR" in small font and "KARPURE" prominent) for camphor products like air fresheners, pouches, tablets, mosquito repellents, and personal care items. The Plaintiff filed for rectification/cancellation of the Defendant's mark on August 1, 2024, and the Defendant countered in January 2025, claiming adoption in 2020 and use since 2022.
The Defendant, established in 1948 as a family business and incorporated in 2014, has well-known marks like "CYCLE" (recognized by courts) and uses taglines emphasizing "purity" (e.g., "Purity of Prayers"). It claimed "KARPURE" combines "Karpura" (Sanskrit for camphor) and "Pure," adopted honestly in 2020. The Defendant has registrations in Classes 5 and 11, with sales of Rs. 479 lakhs in 2024-25 under the mark. It argued no infringement suit lies against a registered proprietor and accused the Plaintiff of concealing an opposition to its own "CAMPURE" registration by a third party (Lifestar Pharma for "CALAPURE"), where the Plaintiff had argued no monopoly over "PURE" and settled by restricting goods. The Defendant also claimed dissimilarity in marks and delay in the Plaintiff's suit.
In reply, the Plaintiff argued the Court could question the Defendant's registration at the interim stage due to fraud (e.g., wrong class), similarity in marks as wholes, no estoppel from prior opposition (as "CALAPURE" was dissimilar), no delay (2022 notice was only for cone shape), and jurisdiction as products are sold online in Bombay.
#### Dispute
The main dispute was whether the Defendant's "AIR KARPURE"/"KARPURE" marks infringed the Plaintiff's "CAMPURE" mark or amounted to passing off. The Plaintiff sought an interim injunction to stop the Defendant from using similar marks, logos, or domain names. Key issues included:
- Similarity: Were the marks visually, phonetically, structurally, or conceptually similar enough to cause confusion?
- Validity of Defendant's Registration: Could the Court go behind the registration at the interim stage and find it invalid (e.g., ex facie illegal or fraudulent under Sections 9 and 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999)?
- Infringement: Under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, does use by a registered proprietor constitute infringement?
- Passing Off: Did the Plaintiff prove goodwill/reputation by 2022, misrepresentation by the Defendant, and likely damage?
- Suppression: Did the Plaintiff hide facts about its own prior opposition, leading to estoppel or denial of relief?
- Delay/Laches/Acquiescence: Was the suit delayed after the 2022 notice?
- Jurisdiction: Did the Bombay High Court have jurisdiction for passing off, given online sales?
The Plaintiff argued phonetic similarity ("CAMPURE" vs "KARPURE"), copied capital "P," similar goods/channels, prior use since 2017, and fraud in Defendant's Class 11 registration (for apparatus, but used for soaps). The Defendant countered with dissimilarity, honest adoption from Sanskrit and "pure" theme, no monopoly on "PURE," valid registrations, no infringement against registered proprietors (Sections 28(3) and 30(2)(e)), suppression by Plaintiff, and no goodwill shown for 2022.
#### Detailed Reasoning
The Court began by noting this was an interim application for injunction in a trademark infringement and passing off suit. It summarized facts and submissions from both sides, citing various precedents.
On maintainability against a registered proprietor: The Court held suits for infringement and passing off are maintainable even against registered proprietors (citing Kantilal Premji Maru vs Madan Kumar). However, under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, infringement requires use of an identical/deceptively similar mark by a non-registered person. Since both parties are registered, no infringement remedy lies (citing Corona Remedies Pvt Ltd vs Franco-Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd and S Syed Moideen vs Sulochana Bai). The pleadings showed the Plaintiff relied on "deceptive similarity" from Section 29, but this doesn't apply between registered proprietors.
On validity of Defendant's registration: The Plaintiff challenged it under Sections 9(2)(a) (absolute grounds, e.g., deceptive marks) and 11 (relative grounds, e.g., similarity to earlier mark causing confusion). The Court noted registration confers exclusive rights if valid (Section 28), but between identical/similar registered marks, no exclusive right against each other (Section 28(3)) and no infringement (Section 30(2)(e)). Citing Lupin Ltd vs Johnson and Johnson (Full Bench), the Court can question validity at interim stage only in exceptional cases where registration is ex facie illegal, fraudulent, or shocks the conscience—not just an arguable case. The burden is heavy on the challenger.
Comparing marks: The Court reproduced rival marks and found no ex facie illegality. Plaintiff's "CAMPURE" (block letters, tall "P" in elongated shape) vs Defendant's "KARPURE" (cursive, flower "K," contiguous "P"). Visual, structural, and artwork differences (e.g., no slurring "r" to "m"); phonetic dissimilarity; no confusion likely among educated consumers for these products. Defendant's registration passed Sections 9/11 scrutiny (no opposition from Plaintiff). No fraud shown—Class 5 overlaps with Class 3 for fresheners/deodorizers; classifications are administrative (citing Allied Auto Accessories Ltd vs Allied Motors Pvt Ltd). Honest adoption from "Karpura" + "Pure" (Defendant's theme). Precedents like Pidilite cases (exact copying) didn't apply here.
On suppression: Plaintiff hid opposition to its "CAMPURE" by third party ("CALAPURE"), where it argued no monopoly on "PURE" and settled by restricting goods. This is material; non-disclosure disentitles discretionary relief (citing Phonepe Pvt Ltd vs Resilient Innovations Pvt Ltd).
On passing off: Relevant date is Defendant's adoption (2022). Plaintiff must prove goodwill/reputation by then, misrepresentation, and damage. Sales figures/ad expenses were for all camphor products since 2014, not specifically under "CAMPURE" for 2022—no standalone proof of distinctive reputation. No specific pleading on which Defendant products pass off as Plaintiff's (cone shape excluded). Packaging dissimilar (colors, look); no misrepresentation or confusion (citing Ruston & Hornsby Ltd vs Zamindara Engineering Co; no delay defense as mere delay insufficient without acquiescence).
On other points: No delay/laches (2022 notice was for cone shape); jurisdiction exists due to online sales in Bombay. But overall, no prima facie case for injunction.
#### Decision
The Court dismissed the interim application, refusing the injunction. The Plaintiff failed to prove ex facie invalidity of Defendant's registration or passing off. The Defendant can continue using its registered mark. No costs mentioned.
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
### 10 Suitable Titles for This Legal Article
1. Bombay High Court Rejects Injunction in 'CAMPURE' vs 'KARPURE' Trademark Dispute
2. Analyzing the Limits of Interim Relief Against Registered Trademarks: Mangalam vs Ranga Rao
3. When Courts Won't Go Behind Trademark Registration: A Case Study on Ex Facie Illegality
4. Trademark Infringement and Passing Off: Lessons from the Camphor Products Battle
5. Suppression of Facts in IP Suits: How It Cost the Plaintiff in Mangalam Organics Case
6. Phonetic Similarity in Trademarks: Bombay HC's Take on 'CAMPURE' and 'KARPURE'
7. Protecting 'Pure' in Branding: The Role of Honest Adoption in Trademark Law
8. Interim Injunction Denied: Balancing Statutory Rights in Competing Trademark Registrations
9. From Sanskrit Roots to Courtrooms: The 'KARPURE' Trademark Validity Saga
10. Passing Off in Fragrance Industry: Why Goodwill Proof Matters in 2022 Adoption Cases
