The Bombay High Court has held that where the plaintiff prima facie establishes statutory rights in registered trademarks, including a well-known mark, and the defendant’s impugned mark, trading name, and domain name are phonetically and visually similar such that the plaintiff’s mark is subsumed within the defendant’s mark, the Court may infer deceptive similarity, likelihood of confusion, and an attempt to ride upon the plaintiff’s goodwill.
In such circumstances, particularly where Lijomart LLP (defendant) remains absent despite service, the High Court granted an ad-interim injunctions for infringement and passing off, and in issuing ancillary search-and-seizure relief through appointment of a Court Receiver and Special Receiver to preserve infringing material of Reliance JIOMART pending further hearing.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh recorded that the plaintiff discovered, during a routine public search in the last week of February 2025, that Defendant No. 2 had filed an application for registration of the impugned mark “LJIO” in Class 35 on a proposed-to-be-used basis and that the mark had been advertised in the trademark journal. The plaintiff had opposed that application and filed evidence. The Bench further noted that although the defendants’ trading name was “LIJOMART LLP”, the registration application had been filed for “LJIO” instead of “LIJO”, and that the defendants had also launched “LJIOMART” and were operating the domain name ‘www.ljiomart.com’ for marketing and selling sanitary ware, hardware materials, electrical and other goods, which according to the plaintiff overlapped with the plaintiff’s offerings under JIOMART.
On prima facie comparison, the Bench held that there was phonetic and visual similarity between the rival marks “JIO/JIOMART/AJIO” and “LJIO”, and observed that the plaintiff’s registered mark was subsumed in the defendants’ impugned mark. The Bench found that the plaintiff’s proprietary right in the registered marks was prima facie demonstrated through registrations in various classes, including Class 35, and that the defendants had launched an identical online store under the mark “LJIOMART”, which was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s online store.
The Bench also observed that the plaintiff’s mark had been declared well-known and had been in substantial use, and that since the defendants had applied for registration of “LJIO” on 21 February 2024, they were deemed to be aware of the plaintiff’s existence in various classes. The defendants’ domain name was also held prima facie to infringe the plaintiff’s registered trademark.
The Bench further held that, on an overall comparison of the rival marks, there was deceptive similarity, and considering the plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation, the defendants’ attempt appeared to be to ride upon that goodwill and reputation. On that basis, the Bench held that a prima facie case had been made out for grant of ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c), which included injunctions against use of the impugned marks, trading names, and domain name, and appointment of a Court Receiver with search and seizure powers.
Accordingly, the Bench appointed the Court Receiver, High Court of Bombay, with powers under Order XL Rule 1 and Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, except the power of sale, including powers to visit and search the defendants’ premises, break open locks, if necessary, with police assistance, seize and seal offending material, and prepare an inventory.
Since the defendants were located in Kerala, the Bench also appointed Advocate Jayaram A. as Additional Special Receiver to execute the order, fixed his fees at Rs. 35,000 per day or part thereof to be paid by the plaintiff in the first instance, directed that the order could be acted upon in digitally signed soft copy form, and continued the ad-interim relief until 23 June 2026. The Additional Special Receiver was directed to submit his report by 15 June 2026 and the Court Receiver by 22 June 2026, with the interim application listed on 23 June 2026.
Briefly, an interim application in a commercial IP suit was filed by Reliance Industries Limited against Lijomart LLP and another for infringement of trademark and passing off. The plaintiff sought ad-interim injunctive relief restraining the defendants from manufacturing or marketing products under the impugned marks “LJIO/LJIOMART”, using the impugned trading name “LJIO/LJIOMART”, and using the domain name ‘www.ljiomart.com’ or any deceptively similar mark, trading name, or domain name.
The plaintiff’s case was that Reliance Industries Limited is the registered proprietor of the trademark “JIO” and its variants across various classes, with “JIO” being the leading and essential feature, and that it has secured approximately over 1,000 trademarks which are valid and subsisting. The plaintiff also submitted that “AJIO” was launched in or around April 2016 as a fashion e-commerce site, and “JIOMART” was launched in April 2020 as an online grocery store catering to daily needs including vegetables, groceries, and electrical and electronic items. The plaintiff further relied on its registrations, its various JIO-formative domain names, the prominence of “JIO” in the corporate names of its subsidiaries and associate companies, and the fact that “JIO” had been declared a well-known trademark by the Registrar of Trademarks.
Appearances:
Hiren Kamod a/w Reshma Ranadiv i/b A.S Dayal & Associates, for the Plaintiff
