Holding Harichand Nagpal (Respondent) guilty of contempt for wilfully disobeying the injunction and directing compliance by stopping use of “NOVA MINI”/“NOVA” and the impugned “NONI” label or any similar mark or label, the Bombay High Court has awarded legal costs of Rs. 32.42 lakhs to Dr. Ashok Bhat (plaintiff) and imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 50 lakhs on Respondent No. 1 under Section 35 and Section 151 CPC, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, because of the respondents’ conduct and wilful breach of the Court’s order. The Court also directed Respondent No. 1 to disclose on oath complete sales accounts for goods sold under the counterfeit label, the “NONI” label and the “NOVA MINI” mark/label within four weeks.
The Court held that where an injunction restrains use of a plaintiff’s registered artistic work, a defendant cannot avoid the order by shifting to another label that reproduces or closely imitates the same artistic features. If the later label is virtually identical or deceptively similar to the restrained artistic work, its use amounts to breach of the injunction. A party already found infringing must also maintain a “safe distance” and cannot make cosmetic changes to continue the prohibited conduct.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor rejected the respondents’ main defence that the injunction applied only to the counterfeit “NOVA” label and not to the “NONI” label. It held that the injunction expressly extended to the plaintiff’s registered artistic work, and the “NONI” label used artistic features that were virtually identical to that artistic work, including the same green colour scheme and geometric design. The Court therefore found that use of the “NONI” label plainly fell within the prohibition contained in the injunction order.
A major factor against Respondent No. 1 was his own prior conduct. The Court noted that he had earlier sought a clarification from the Division Bench that the injunction should not apply to the “NONI” label. That clarification was refused. The Court said this showed that Respondent No. 1 himself understood that the injunction did extend to the “NONI” label and the artistic work used on it. That made his later argument to the contrary not only untenable but “patently dishonest.”
The Court further held that the respondents could not justify disobedience by relying on the fact that “NONI” was a registered mark or on the IPAB order which had refused rectification of that registration. The Court treated these as merits-based defences that could not excuse breach of a subsisting injunction. It said plainly that once the injunction remained in force, it had to be obeyed in both letter and spirit, and the IPAB order could not be used as a shield against compliance with a High Court injunction.
The Court also invoked the “safe distance” principle. It observed that even assuming the “NONI” label had not been specifically impugned earlier, once the injunction was passed the respondents were required to maintain a safe distance from the plaintiff’s artistic work and could not continue using any deceptively similar label. The Court found that Respondent No. 1 had failed to maintain that safe distance.
On the “NOVA MINI” products, the Court disbelieved the explanation that an employee had mistakenly used old labels. It noted that Respondent No. 1 had admitted sales of impugned products from 2019 onwards to the extent of about Rs. 83.46 lakhs, and had failed to make full disclosure of sales figures despite repeated opportunities. The Court viewed this selective disclosure as deliberate and indicative of an attempt to conceal the full extent of sales made in breach of the injunction.
The Court made strong remarks on the respondents’ conduct. It described Respondent No. 1 as a habitual counterfeiter with scant regard for court orders, and held that Respondent No. 3 was complicit because he had represented himself to the Receiver as proprietor of Ravi Industries, assisted in the business, and did not even appear to deny the allegations against him. The Court concluded that both respondents had acted in a wilful, deliberate and calculated manner to defeat the injunction.
Briefly, two contempt applications were filed by Dr. Ashok M. Bhat against Harichand Nagpal and others under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, both alleging wilful breach of an earlier injunction order dated 24 November 2010. The original suit was an infringement and passing off action concerning the plaintiff’s registered trade mark “NOVA” and its registered artistic label used for brilliantine hair cream.
The plaintiff’s case began when, in 2007, he discovered that Respondent No. 1 was allegedly selling counterfeit brilliantine hair cream using the mark “NOVA” and a counterfeit label resembling the plaintiff’s registered label. The plaintiff then filed the suit seeking interim reliefs to restrain the defendants from using the impugned “NOVA” mark, any deceptively similar mark, and any carton or label identical or substantially similar to the plaintiff’s original artistic work. On 24 November 2010, the Court granted interim relief in terms of those prayer clauses.
The injunction order clearly restrained the defendants not only from using the mark “NOVA” or any deceptively similar mark, but also from using the plaintiff’s original artistic carton and label protected by copyright registration. This became central because the later dispute was not only about the word mark but also about continued use of similar label artwork. According to the plaintiff, in December 2013 he discovered that Respondent No. 1 was using the mark “NONI” for brilliantine hair cream along with label artwork that was virtually identical to the plaintiff’s registered artistic work and also similar to the earlier counterfeit “NOVA” label. This led to the first contempt application in 2016 alleging breach of the injunction order.
The second contempt application arose in February 2025 when the Court Receiver, while acting in another proceeding at the premises of Respondent No. 1, found goods bearing the mark “NOVA MINI” as well as goods with the “NONI” label. The Receiver’s report also recorded that Kamlesh Nagpal, the son of Respondent No. 1, introduced himself as proprietor of M/s Ravi Industries. On this basis, the plaintiff filed the second contempt application and added Kamlesh Nagpal as Respondent No. 3.
