The Bombay High Court on September 3, 2025 presided by Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, dismissed an Interim Application of the Plaintiff in a trademark infringement dispute between two rival trademarks in the camphor product market named “Campure” and “Air Karpure” respectively.
The Plaintiff, claimed to have adopted the mark “Campure” in 2017 for camphor-based deodorants, fresheners, soaps, and toiletries, and had obtained registrations supported by substantial sales and advertising expenditure to establish goodwill. It also marketed a cone-shaped camphor product under the same mark.In December 2022, the Plaintiff issued a notice to the Defendant after learning of its plan to launch a cone-shaped camphor product. However, it later discovered that the Defendant, had already registered and was using the mark “Air Karpure,” applied in November 2020 and has been in use since 2022, for camphor products such as air fresheners, repellents, and tablets. The Plaintiff alleged that the mark was deceptively similar to “Campure” and sought an interim injunction.
The Defendant argued that it was the registered proprietor of “Air Karpure”and that, under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, no infringement suit could lie against another registered proprietor. It contended that “Karpure” was honestly coined from the Sanskrit word Karpura (camphor) combined with “Pure,” and that the adoption was consistent with its longstanding “Cycle” brand. The Defendant further stressed that the rival marks differed in appearance, sound, and packaging.
The Court held that an infringement claim cannot be maintained against a registered proprietor unless the registration is shown to be ex facie illegal or fraudulent. The Court also found that “Campure” and “Air Karpure” differed in fonts, stylisation, and trade dress, and that the products were sold in distinct packaging, making consumer confusion unlikely. Accordingly, the Interim Application stood dismissed and the Defendant was allowed to continue using the registered trademark.
Appearances:
For the Plaintiff: Adv. Hiren Kamod a/w Adv. Anees Patel, Adv. Usha Chandrasekhar, Adv.Avisha Mehta and Rajamtangi i/by Suvarna Joshi
For the Defendant: Adv. Rashmin Khandekar a/w Adv. Anand Mohan, Adv.Rahul Dhote, Adv. Shwetank Tripathi, Adv. Nipun Krishnaraj and Adv.Vidit Desai i/by ANM Global
