Summary
Bisleri International Private Limited, the packaged drinking water major, took a Karnataka manufacturer to the Bombay High Court after discovering bottles sold under the mark 'BISLIE', formed by deleting one letter from 'BISLERI' and swapping two others. The company also accused the manufacturer of copying its bottle design, label artwork and overall trade dress. On 7 August 2026, the Bombay High Court confirmed and expanded an earlier ad-interim injunction, restraining the manufacturer from using the 'BISLIE' mark, the imitated artwork, and the near-identical bottle shape. The ruling underscores how courts assess deceptive similarity through the complete visual and commercial impression a product creates rather than through spelling alone, and it shows that an uncontested defence carries real consequences in interim trademark proceedings.
Background
A five-letter shuffle can be the difference between a lawful brand and a courtroom battle. When a Karnataka-based bottling unit began selling packaged drinking water under a label that read almost, but not quite, like India’s best-known mineral water brand, the resemblance was close enough to draw the attention of investigators and, eventually, a Bombay High Court injunction in a fresh Bisleri trademark infringement dispute.
Bisleri International Private Limited (“Bisleri”), the proprietor of the widely recognised BISLERI trademark for packaged drinking water, holds a string of trademark registrations across classes 32 and 39, along with copyright registrations for the original artistic works on its bottle labels dating back to 2009. Bisleri routinely monitors the market through investigators to guard against imitation. During one such exercise in Channarayapattana, Karnataka, in the last week of May 2026, its team traced packaged drinking water bearing the mark “BISLIE” to a manufacturing unit run by Belaguli Mahalingegowda Kirankumar, proprietor of Kalabyraveshwara Mineral Water Industry (“Kirankumar”). Bisleri alleged that Kirankumar had arrived at “BISLIE” by deleting the sixth letter, “r”, from “BISLERI” and swapping the positions of the fifth and seventh letters, “e” and “i”, while also replicating its label artwork, colour scheme and bottle shape. On 11 June 2026, the Bombay High Court passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction and appointed a court receiver with search and seizure powers, and the receiver’s raid on Kirankumar’s premises followed. Bisleri then sought confirmation and expansion of that relief.
Issues
-
- Whether the mark BISLIE is deceptively similar to the registered trademark BISLERI under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“Trade Marks Act”)
- Whether Kirankumar’s label artwork and colour scheme infringe Bisleri’s registered copyright in its original artistic works under the Copyright Act, 1957 (“Copyright Act”)
- Whether the bottle design and trade dress used by Kirankumar amount to passing off Bisleri’s goods
- Whether the ad-interim relief granted on 11 June 2026, including appointment of a court receiver, warranted confirmation given Kirankumar’s non-appearance
Bisleri’s Arguments
-
- Bisleri has held registered rights in the BISLERI trademark under numerous registrations spanning class 32, covering mineral and aerated waters, and class 39, covering bottling and distribution services, built over decades of continuous use.
- Bisleri’s investigators traced the BISLIE mark to Kirankumar’s Karnataka unit and demonstrated, through a side-by-side comparison, that the mark was formed by minimal alteration of BISLERI.
- Bisleri asserted ownership of the original artistic works on its labels, registered under the Copyright Act in 2009 and 2025, and argued that Kirankumar’s packaging reproduced the colour scheme, layout and get-up of those labels.
- Bisleri submitted that Kirankumar’s bottle shape and design were substantially similar to its own bottle, amounting to passing off independent of its registered trademark rights.
- Bisleri sought confirmation of the ad-interim order and additional relief covering the trade dress and bottle design, relying on the Additional Special Receiver’s Report and on Kirankumar’s failure to contest the proceedings.
Kirankumar’s Arguments
-
- Kirankumar did not enter appearance despite service of the suit and did not file any affidavit in reply, leaving Bisleri’s factual claims uncontroverted on record.
Court’s Analysis
Reading Deceptive Similarity Beyond the Letters
The court observed that a straightforward visual comparison of the two marks left little room for doubt. It noted that Kirankumar had arrived at “BISLIE” by deleting the letter “r” from “BISLERI” and transposing the positions of “e” and “i”, a change too slight to alter the overall commercial impression created on an ordinary purchaser. The court found that, prima facie, the resemblance between the two marks was not incidental. This finding anchored the Bisleri trademark infringement claim from the outset, since deceptive similarity under the Trade Marks Act is assessed by the overall impression a mark creates rather than a letter-by-letter dissection.
Artwork, Colour Scheme and the Copyright Claim
The court observed that the packaging used by Kirankumar reproduced the colour scheme, placement of features, get-up, layout and style of Bisleri’s labels, which Bisleri had registered as original artistic works under the Copyright Act. The court noted that this similarity extended beyond the trademark itself to the complete visual presentation of the product, supporting Bisleri’s case that the imitation was not confined to the brand name alone.
Trade Dress and the Shape of the Bottle
The court further observed that the bottle design and shape used by Kirankumar were almost identical with, or an obvious imitation of, the design applied to Bisleri’s own bottles. It reasoned that where packaging, shape and label combine to replicate a competitor’s product so closely, the resulting confusion supports a passing off claim independent of registered trademark rights, since ordinary consumers rely on the complete look of a product rather than isolated elements. This aspect of the Bisleri trademark infringement dispute illustrated how trade dress protection operates alongside registered rights.
Weight of an Uncontested Record
The court noted that Kirankumar had been served and that an affidavit of service was on file, yet no appearance was entered and no reply was filed. It observed that the Additional Special Receiver’s Report supported the contentions raised in the interim application and the plaint, and it found that the absence of any rebuttal left Bisleri’s factual case uncontroverted. The court reasoned that in these circumstances, the material already on record, including the outcome of the receiver’s search, was sufficient to confirm and extend the interim protection first granted in June.
Findings
In view of the observations and the arguments presented by both the parties, the Bombay High Court held that:
-
- Kirankumar stands restrained from manufacturing, distributing, packaging, marketing or selling packaged drinking water under the mark BISLIE, or any mark deceptively similar to BISLERI, confirming infringement of Bisleri’s registered trademark rights.
- Kirankumar stands restrained from using the impugned artwork, colour scheme and label layout, confirming infringement of Bisleri’s copyright in its original artistic works.
- Kirankumar stands restrained from using the impugned trade dress and bottle design or shape mark, on the ground that it amounts to passing off Bisleri’s goods.
- The Leave Petition under the Letters Patent (Bombay) Act is allowed, and the earlier order appointing a court receiver with search and seizure powers stands confirmed, with the receiver’s report disposed of accordingly.
Case Citation: Bisleri International Private Limited v. Belaguli Mahalingegowda Kirankumar, Interim Application (L) No. 18664 of 2026 with Leave Petition No. 208 of 2026 and Court Receiver’s Report No. 292 of 2026 in Commercial IP Suit (L.) No. 18582 of 2026, Bombay High Court, decided on 7 August 2026. Available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/18339710/
Authored by Gaurav Mishra, IP Attorney, BananaIP Counsels