The Bombay High Court has restrained the Defendant from manufacturing, selling, or using the impugned mark “BISLIE” or any mark deceptively similar to “BISLERI” pending final disposal of the suit. The Court found that the Defendant had merely deleted the sixth alphabet “r” from “Bisleri” and interchanged the fifth and seventh alphabets “e” and “i” to create the impugned mark “Bislie,” establishing deceptive similarity on the face of the record.
The Court held that where a defendant adopts a mark that is a minor phonetic and visual manipulation of a well-known registered trademark, achieved by deleting one alphabet and interchanging two others, and couples it with an identical colour scheme, get-up, layout, and trade dress, a strong prima facie case of trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off is made out. Thus, the defendant’s failure to appear or contest despite service, combined with corroborative findings in the Receiver’s Report, warrants confirmation of the ex-parte ad-interim injunction and appointment of the Court Receiver for search and seizure of infringing goods.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Madhav J. Jamadar had earlier, on 11th June 2026, passed an ex-parte ad-interim order in favour of the Plaintiff, wherein it recorded a prima facie finding that the impugned mark “Bislie” was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s trademark “Bisleri.” The Court observed that upon comparison of the rival product, it was evident that the Defendant had copied the Plaintiff’s mark, and the impugned artwork bore an identical colour scheme, placement of features, get-up, layout, style, representation, and trade dress substantially similar to the Plaintiff’s Bisleri labels.
The Court noted that the Plaintiff is the lawful owner and rightful proprietor of the original artistic works vesting in its Bisleri labels, duly registered under the Copyright Act. The Additional Special Receiver’s Report confirmed that there was substance in the contentions raised in the Interim Application and the Plaint. Since the Defendant failed to appear despite service and did not file any affidavit in reply, all contentions raised by the Plaintiff in the Interim Application, the Plaint, and the Leave Petition remained entirely uncontroverted.
Briefly, Bisleri International Private Limited, a well-known manufacturer of packaged drinking water, filed a commercial IP suit before the Bombay High Court against one Belaguli Mahalingegowda Kirankumar, the proprietor of Kalabyraveshwara Mineral Water Industry, alleging trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off. The Plaintiff’s case was that during a routine market search conducted by its investigating team in the last week of May 2026 at Channarayapattana, Karnataka, the team discovered a manufacturing unit of the Defendant engaged in manufacturing and marketing packaged drinking water bearing the impugned mark “Bislie” depicted under a pirated artwork and trade dress that was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s registered trademark and original artistic works of “Bisleri.”
The Plaintiff contended that the Defendant had merely deleted the sixth alphabet “r” from “Bisleri” and interchanged the position of the fifth and seventh alphabets “e” and “i” to arrive at the impugned mark “Bislie,” making it a clear case of deceptive similarity. The Plaintiff also asserted ownership of registered copyrights in its Bisleri labels under the Copyright Act, 1957, and holds multiple trademark registrations for “Bisleri” across classes 32 and 39. The Defendant was served but chose not to appear or file any reply, leaving all contentions of the Plaintiff uncontroverted.
