Summary
This post examines the Bombay High Court’s decision in Mangalam Organics Ltd vs N Ranga Rao And Sons Pvt Ltd. The case involved allegations of trademark infringement and passing off concerning the marks CAMPURE and KARPURE/AIR KARPURE for camphor-based products. The Court held that infringement cannot be claimed against a registered proprietor and found that the marks were not deceptively similar. It also determined that the packaging and trade dress were sufficiently distinct to avoid confusion. Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s application for injunction was dismissed, affirming the Defendant’s entitlement to use its registered marks.
Background
The Plaintiff, Mangalam Organics Ltd, conceived the mark “CAMPURE” and its stylized logo around March 2017 for its camphor-based products, and obtained registrations in Classes 3, 4 and 5. Its products included deodorants, air fresheners, soaps, hair conditioners, lotions, and sanitary preparations, marketed under the house mark “Mangalam.” In 2014, the Plaintiff launched a unique cone-shaped camphor product wrapped in non-woven fabric, which was registered as a trade dress in Class 5, and which was also sold under the CAMPURE mark since 2017. The Plaintiff built substantial goodwill and reputation in the CAMPURE marks, supported by considerable sales and advertising expenditure.
In 2022, Mangalam Organics discovered that the Defendant, N. Ranga Rao and Sons Pvt Ltd, an established entity in the fragrance and incense industry, was preparing to launch camphor-based products under the marks “KARPURE” and “AIR KARPURE” using similar trade dress. The Defendant had applied for and obtained registrations of these marks in Classes 5 and 11 in 2020–2022. Mangalam issued a cease-and-desist notice in December 2022, alleging infringement, but the Defendant denied the claim, relying on its own registrations. Defendant also averred that Plaintiff held no registrations in the cone-shaped trade dress, and that its application for the said mark was opposed.
In 2024, the Plaintiff sought cancellation of the Defendant’s KARPURE trademark before the Trademark Office.
Issues Before the Court
The Court determined that the following issues were relevant in the matter:
-
- Whether the Defendant’s use of KARPURE / AIR KARPURE infringed the Plaintiff’s registered mark CAMPURE.
- Whether the Plaintiff could maintain a suit for infringement and passing off against a registered proprietor (the Defendant).
- Whether a prima facie case existed for grant of interim injunction in favor of the Plaintiff.
- Whether the rival marks were deceptively similar, such that confusion was likely among consumers.
Submissions of Parties
The Plaintiff argued that the mark CAMPURE had acquired strong reputation and goodwill through continuous use, extensive sales, and promotional activities. The Plaintiff contended that KARPURE and AIR KARPURE were phonetically, visually, and structurally similar to its mark and likely to mislead consumers. It was further submitted that the suffix “PURE” was distinctive in connection with camphor products and had come to be exclusively associated with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff also emphasized that under the Trade Marks Act, passing off actions were maintainable even against registered proprietors.
The Defendant, in contrast, asserted that as the registered proprietor of its marks, it was entitled to their use and immune from infringement claims. The Defendant highlighted that “CAMPURE” and “KARPURE” were sufficiently dissimilar in sound and appearance, noting the distinctive use of “K” and the addition of “AIR” in its mark. It also argued that “Pure” was a common descriptive term in the trade and that no one could claim monopoly over it. Furthermore, the Defendant pointed out that the Plaintiff had not opposed its registration applications at the relevant stage and could not now challenge them belatedly. It stressed its own reputation and longstanding business in fragrance products, which lent distinctiveness to its marks.
Analysis and Decision of the Court
The Court examined the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, particularly Sections 27, 28, 29, and 30. It noted that while passing off actions are indeed maintainable against a registered proprietor, infringement claims cannot succeed where the Defendant is itself a registered owner of the impugned marks. On the question of similarity, the Court emphasized that rival marks must be considered as a whole and not dissected into parts. Consequently, “CAMPURE” and “KARPURE/AIR KARPURE” were found to be different in their overall structure and impression. The Plaintiff’s reliance on the common use of the element “PURE” was not tenable, as “Pure” is a descriptive word that many traders use in relation to camphor and similar products.
The Court also compared the packaging and trade dress of the products and found noticeable differences in design, color schemes, and overall presentation. These differences, according to the Court, reduced the likelihood of confusion. Importantly, the Court held that the Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate any ex facie illegality or fraudulent registration on the part of the Defendant that could justify overriding the Defendant’s statutory rights as a registered proprietor. It also rejected the defence of delay, laches, or acquiescence in bringing the action. The Court also determined that the Plaintiff had failed to make out a prima facie case of passing off, and thus the Plaintiff was entitled to no relief.
Order
The Court held that the Plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case for either trademark infringement or passing off. It held that the rival marks were not deceptively similar in a manner likely to cause confusion, and that the Defendant was entitled to use its registered marks “KARPURE” and “AIR KARPURE.” Consequently, the Plaintiff’s Interim Application seeking injunction was dismissed.
Case Citation
Mangalam Organics Ltd vs N Ranga Rao And Sons Pvt Ltd., IAL-7446-2025 in Commercial IP Suit No. 194 of 2025, Bombay High Court, 3rd September, 2025. Available on: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/113251466/
Author: Ashwini Arun