Visual Similarity, Marketplace Confusion, and Trademark Rights
Fact:The dispute is between Ifra Sheikh, acting through a power of attorney and trading as Rocket Bidi Works, and Ms Mobile Bidi Traders, a partnership firm. The plaintiff, Ms Mobile Bidi Traders, has been making, marketing, and selling handmade bidis and matchboxes since 2005 and claims to have a registered trademark "Online BIDI" (registered on 04.01.2020, application dated 31.08.2017) and copyright over its label design (registered 13.06.2024).
The plaintiff asserts that the design and blue color scheme of its packaging—known as "Asmani Puda" in the market—sets its product apart, especially as consumers are mainly workers and laborers from less educated backgrounds, making them prone to confusion. The defendant, Ifra Sheikh, sells bidis under the brand “ATM BIDI No.07.” The plaintiff alleges that the defendant’s color scheme and packaging design are deceptively similar to their own, causing a likelihood of confusion among ordinary purchasers who recognize products by appearance rather than name.
Procedural Detail:Ms Mobile Bidi Traders filed Trademark Suit No.05 of 2024 in the District Court, seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from using confusingly similar marks or packaging. On 12.08.2025, the District Judge-12, Nagpur, granted this temporary injunction, leading the defendant to file the present appeal before the High Court. The appellant (Ifra Sheikh) argued that the two products are not similar, especially after the defendant altered its design on 01.07.2024 to avoid further disputes. The defendant also alleged that the packaging used by the plaintiff did not include the statutory health warning required by the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Rules, 2008, and therefore, the plaintiff should not be granted the equitable relief of injunction. Earlier, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by the defendant for rejection of the plaint on this ground was dismissed by the trial court.
Dispute:The central dispute was whether the defendant’s packaging was deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff, potentially misleading consumers and infringing the plaintiff’s registered trademark and copyright. The defendant argued that its new packaging was not similar, that distinguishing features set the products apart, and that statutory non-compliance with health warnings on plaintiff’s outer packaging should disentitle the plaintiff from relief. The plaintiff countered that broad similarities in the products’ appearance—especially the blue color scheme—were likely to confuse consumers, who are not generally literate or brand-aware, and that the existing health warnings on bundles met statutory requirements.
Detailed Reasoning and Discussion:The court identified that the end consumer of bidis—often workers or laborers—is likely to differentiate brands based on packaging and appearance rather than names or minor design differences. Both parties’ bidi bundles bore a blue conical design, and both included health warnings on the bundles (even if not on the wholesale outer packet). The trial court had rightly observed that similarities in the color scheme and visual presentation could be deceptive for such consumers.
In response to the defendant’s argument that the failure to provide a statutory health warning on outer packaging should disentitle the plaintiff from relief, the court looked to the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003, and its implementing rules. These provisions require statutory warnings on every “retail package.” The court found that although the external wholesale package lacked the warning, the retail bundle carried it, and that, even in case of procedural violation, relief for trademark infringement could not be denied in this context unless statutory authorities took action against the plaintiff. The policy behind the rules is consumer protection—not to be manipulated as a defence in trademark disputes (citing Sections 7, 14, 15, and 20 of the 2003 Act and Rule 3e of 2008 Rules).
The court also cited Ms Hiralal Industries Ltd. v. S.M. Associates and others (AIR 1984 Bom 218) for the principle that even where distinguishing features are identified, overall similarities—especially from an “arm-chair” or practical consumer perspective—prevail in the confusion analysis. The sales figures argument was dismissed as the plaintiff’s registered rights pertained specifically to the blue-labeled packages, which were at issue.
The appellate court reiterated the “arm-chair rule” (how a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection would perceive the products), reinforcing protection for consumers who may be influenced by broad visual similarities in the marketplace.
On the question of discretion, the court reiterated that, in appeals against discretionary orders like temporary injunctions, interference is justified only if a clear error or legal mistake has occurred—neither of which was present in this case[1].
Judgement:The High Court found no error in the trial court’s approach and held:The plaintiff’s mark "Online BIDI" and associated blue-colored trade dress enjoys protection under Sections 28 and 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and copyright under the Copyright Act, 1957.
Where packaging breaches are alleged under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Rules, 2008, and the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003—such breaches only lead to specified statutory consequences and not automatic disentitlement to trademark relief unless authorities take action. Section 15 of the 2003 Act allows for conditional release of confiscated goods if labeling requirements are corrected.
The principle established in Ms Hiralal Industries Ltd. v. S.M. Associates and others (AIR 1984 Bom 218), namely, that broad similarities in trade dress must prevail in such disputes, was upheld.Therefore, the order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from using the deceptively similar trade dress was justified.
Decision:The appeal was dismissed. The trial court’s order for temporary injunction against the defendant’s use of packaging and branding similar to the plaintiff’s was upheld. The court made no order as to costs.
Case Title: Ifra Sheikh Trading as Rocket Bidi Works Vs. Ms Mobile Bidi Traders
Order Date: 04.11.2025
Case Number: Appeal Against Order No.19 of 2025
Neutral Citation: 2025BHC-NAG11393
Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Justice Rohit W. Joshi
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
