Ifra Sheikh, Trading As Rocket Bidi Vs Mobile Bidi Traders, Partnership ... on 4 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:11393
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO.19 OF 2025
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 16.10.2025 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 04.11.2025 AO.19.2025 Judgment.odt
Facts
This case involves a legal battle between two businesses dealing with the manufacture and sale of bidis, a type of hand-rolled cigarette popular in India. Ifra Sheikh, trading as Rocket Bidi Works, is the appellant and was originally the defendant in a trademark suit. The respondent, M/S Mobile Bidi Traders, a partnership firm, was the original plaintiff. The dispute began when the plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming that the defendant was using a trademark and trade-dress similar to their own registered trademark, "Online BIDI," which was causing confusion among buyers. The plaintiff has been in the business of making and selling handmade bidis and matchboxes since 2005 and registered their trademark "Online BIDI" on January 4, 2020, after applying for it on August 31, 2017, under class-34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. They also registered the design of their label as an artistic work under the Copyright Act, 1957, on June 13, 2024. The plaintiff's products are known in the market as "Asmani Puda" due to their distinctive blue-colored packaging.
The defendant, on the other hand, sells bidis under the brand name "ATM BIDI No.07" and was accused of using a similar blue color scheme and design, which the plaintiff argued could mislead customers, especially those who are less educated or illiterate, into thinking they were buying the plaintiff's product. The defendant countered that they had changed their design since July 1, 2024, to avoid any confusion and that the new design was different from the plaintiff's. They also raised a concern that the plaintiff's outer packaging did not carry the required health warning as per the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Rules, 2008, suggesting that the plaintiff was not following the law and should not be granted any legal relief.
The matter escalated when the plaintiff sought a temporary injunction to stop the defendant from using the similar trademark during the ongoing lawsuit. The trial court, on August 12, 2025, granted this injunction, leading the defendant to appeal to the High Court at Nagpur Bench, where the final judgment was delivered on November 4, 2025.
Procedural Detail
The legal journey began with the plaintiff filing Trademark Suit No.05 of 2024 in the District Court at Nagpur against the defendant. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed an application marked as Exhibit 20, requesting a temporary injunction to prevent the defendant from using the disputed trademark. The defendant responded by filing a written statement and a reply, opposing the suit and the injunction. They also tried to get the plaintiff's case thrown out by filing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, arguing that the plaintiff's failure to follow packaging rules disqualified them from seeking relief. However, the trial court rejected this application and, on August 12, 2025, allowed the temporary injunction, finding that the defendant's trademark was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's.
Dissatisfied with this decision, the defendant, represented by Advocate Mr. S. Zia Quazi, appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, filing Appeal Against Order No.19 of 2025. The appeal was heard by Justice Rohit W. Joshi, with the judgment reserved on October 16, 2025, and pronounced on November 4, 2025. The court heard arguments from both sides, with Mr. D.V. Chauhan, Senior Advocate, representing the plaintiff. The court decided the case finally with the consent of both parties' lawyers, making the rule returnable forthwith.
Dispute
The central dispute revolves around the similarity between the trademarks and trade-dresses of the plaintiff’s "Online BIDI" and the defendant’s "ATM BIDI No.07." The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s use of a blue color scheme and design was too close to their registered trademark and copyright-protected label, risking confusion among customers, particularly those who are illiterate or from poorer sections of society. They claimed this similarity could lead buyers to purchase the defendant’s product thinking it was theirs, harming their business reputation and sales.
The defendant denied any significant similarity, pointing out that their brand name and design elements, such as the shape of the text and placement of images, were different. They highlighted that they had updated their design in July 2024 to avoid any overlap and argued that the trial court ignored these differences. Additionally, the defendant brought up the plaintiff’s alleged non-compliance with the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003, and its 2008 Packaging Rules, specifically Rule 3(e), which requires health warnings on all packaging, including outer packets. They contended that since the plaintiff’s outer packets lacked this warning, the plaintiff should not be entitled to an injunction.
Detailed Reasoning Including on Judgment with Complete Citation Referred and Discussed
The High Court’s judgment focused on whether the trial court’s decision to grant the temporary injunction was justified. The court began by clarifying that an appeal against a temporary injunction is not like a regular appeal where all facts and law are re-examined from scratch. Instead, it must respect the trial court’s discretion, as guided by the Supreme Court in Wander Ltd. and another vs. Antox India P. Ltd., reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 727. This case established that higher courts should not easily overturn a trial court’s discretionary order unless it is clearly wrong or ignores important legal principles.
The court found that the plaintiff’s trademark "Online BIDI" and its label design were indeed registered, giving the plaintiff a legal right to protect them. It agreed with the plaintiff’s argument, supported by the trial court’s findings, that the comparison should focus on the bidi bundles sold to customers rather than the outer packets used for wholesale. Both bundles featured a blue conical design with the trade names, and the court observed that this similarity could confuse buyers, especially those who rely on visual cues rather than reading labels. This view aligned with the decision in ITC Limited vs. NTC Industries Ltd, reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 4976, another case involving trademark infringement in the cigarette industry, which emphasized protecting consumers from confusion.
The defendant’s lawyer argued that the updated design since July 2024 was distinct, with differences like the shape of the text area and the addition of "Special Kadak Bidi" on their packet. However, the court relied on M/s Hiralal Industries Ltd. vs. S.M. Associates and others, reported in AIR 1984 Bom 218, which stated that minor differences should not overshadow broad similarities if they can still confuse buyers. The court noted that the end consumers, often uneducated laborers, might not notice these details, applying what is known as the "armchair rule"—imagining how an average buyer would perceive the products.
On the defendant’s claim about the plaintiff’s packaging rules violation, the court examined Rule 3(e) of the 2008 Packaging Rules, which mandates health warnings on all packaging intended for consumer use or retail sale, including outer cartons. The plaintiff’s outer packets lacked this warning, but the bundles did comply. The defendant cited Sections 7, 8(2), 10, and 31 of the Act of 2003, which prohibit selling tobacco products without warnings, and Section 20, which imposes penalties like imprisonment or fines for non-compliance. Section 15 allows confiscated goods to be released if warnings are added. The court acknowledged this breach but found that no action had been taken against the plaintiff by authorities, and the bundles’ compliance meant the product reached consumers legally. It interpreted the rules purposively, as suggested by the plaintiff’s lawyer, to prioritize consumer protection over strict literal enforcement, concluding that this violation did not justify overturning the injunction.
Ultimately, the court held that the trial court properly exercised its discretion, considering the legal principles and facts. The appeal’s scope limited the High Court’s ability to substitute its judgment, and no strong case for interference was made. The registered trademark’s protection and the potential consumer confusion outweighed the defendant’s arguments.
Decision
In light of the above reasoning, the High Court dismissed the appeal on November 4, 2025. The rule was made absolute in the terms set out, with no order as to costs. The temporary injunction granted by the trial court on August 12, 2025, restraining the defendant from using the similar trademark during the suit’s pendency, was upheld.
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
Suggested Titles for Legal Analytical Article
"Protecting Trademarks in the Bidi Industry: A Case Study of Ifra Sheikh vs. M/S Mobile Bidi Traders"
"Blue Confusion: Analyzing Trademark Injunctions in Ifra Sheikh vs. M/S Mobile Bidi Traders"
"Consumer Protection and Trademark Law: Lessons from the Rocket Bidi Case"
"Navigating Packaging Rules and Trademark Disputes: The Ifra Sheikh Judgment"
"Judicial Discretion in Trademark Appeals: Insights from Ifra Sheikh vs. M/S Mobile Bidi Traders"
