Name of the court: Bombay High Court 

Bench: Honorable Justice B.P. Collabawala 


 Plaintiff: Bajaj Electricals Ltd., the applicant

Defendant: Gourav Bajaj and others. 


When granted, intellectual property rights (IPRs) allow the owner or creator of the property to prevent others from using it for commercial purposes for a predetermined amount of time. When their creations are used for profit, it enables the owner or creator to profit from them.

A trademark is a distinguishing symbol or indication of any type that is used by a person, company, or legal entity to tell customers where to find their goods or services and to set them apart from those of other companies.

Anyone claiming to be the trademark owner, whether they be an individual, a business, or another legal entity, may apply. In a few days, the application can be submitted, and you can begin utilizing the “TM” symbol.

The legal rights of the owner of intellectual property are referred to as copyright. The exclusive right to reproduce creative work is granted to the inventor by copyright law, usually for a certain period of time. The creative endeavor could be in the form of music, painting, literature, or education. The original representation of a concept in the form of a creative work is what copyright is meant to safeguard, not the concept itself.

Facts of the Case:

An interim injunction was requested in this action by Bajaj Electricals from the Bombay High Court against the defendant, a person who owns and operates two retail electrical appliance outlets in Abohar, Punjab. Under the trade names “BAJAJ” as the “APNA BAJAJ STORE” & “BAJAJ EXCELLENT,” Gourav Bajaj was running these establishments. Additionally, the defendant runs a website using the contested domain Bajaj Electrical argued in this lawsuit that it is one of the oldest business groups in India and that the mark “BAJAJ” is a well-known registered trademark or name. Additionally, the Bombay High Court declared it to be a well-known trademark in the 1987 case “BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LIMITED V METALS & ALLIED PRODUCTS AND ANR. AIR 1988.” The defendant did not show up in court, despite multiple notices being delivered.


  1. to grant the plaintiff an ad-interim injunction
  2. to prevent the defendant from using the plaintiff’s registered trademark, “BAJAJ,” on their label, domain name, or business.
  3. to prevent the defendant from publishing, duplicating, distributing, or otherwise exploiting the plaintiff’s registered trademark in any way.

Laws applicable in the case: 

  • Section 14(c) of the Copyright Act of 1957 permits the
  • [1] reproduction of artistic works in any material form, including three-dimensional representations of two-dimensional works or two-dimensional representations of three-dimensional works.
  • [2] To inform the public about the work 
  • [3] to distribute copies of the work to the public if none are already in use 
  • [4] To incorporate the work into a cinematography film 
  • [5] To modify the work in any way 
  • [6] To take any action related to the work’s adoption, including any of the acts listed under subclause (1) to (4).
  • Section 14 of the Trademark Act of 1999 pertains to the use of names and representations of recently deceased or living individuals. when a trademark registration application is filed that fraudulently claims affiliation with a living individual or a deceased individual who passed away within 20 years of the trademark application date.
  • Before moving forward with the application, the registrar requests that the applicant provide him—or, in the event of a deceased person, their legal representative—with the connection shown on the trademark. The registrar reserves the right to reject the application if the applicant fails to provide the registrar with this consent.
  • In accordance with Clause 14 of Letter Patent (Bombay), a person may combine two causes of action if the High Court has the authority to hear only one of those claims.


The plaintiff used the trademark “BAJAJ,” which has grown to be a well-known brand in their commercial operations, and filed a lawsuit for an interim injunction against the defendant to prevent him from using it.

The defendant, Gourav Bajaj, is the one who runs the company under the trade names “APNA BAJAJ AND BAJAJ EXCELLENT” and multiple warnings, the accused did not show up for court.

Ruling in the case of Gourav Bajaj & Anr. v. Bajaj Electricals Ltd.-

The judge read the record and listened to the submission in detail. Primarily, the evidence presented to me indicates that the plaintiff has a registered BAJAJ trademark and the aforementioned creative labels, and that the plaintiff has obtained rights to the registered BAJAJ mark and artistic label. The contested trademark, name, label, and domain name utilized in relation to the contested products and services of the defendant appear to be remarkably identical to the plaintiff’s well-known BAJAJ mark, prima facie.

Since 1961, the plaintiff has gone by the given name BAJAJ, and both the registry and the courts have acknowledged her as a well-known figure. The registrar referenced the plaintiff’s mark while reviewing the defendant’s mark. These elements bolster the plaintiff’s argument that the defendant adopted and used the contested name, trademark, label, and domain name dishonestly.

There is a compelling first argument in favor of granting ad-interim relief under these conditions. The plaintiff is likely to be harmed if the requested relief is not granted. Not one has shown up on behalf of the accused despite notice. The plaintiff has the advantage in terms of convenience. If the defendant’s infringement acts persist, the plaintiff could likewise sustain irreversible harm.

Therefore, an ad-interim order pertaining to the prayer clauses of the interim application shall exist.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *