Bisleri vs. Agrawal: Bombay HC Decrees Settlement on ‘BILSSERI’

Core Controversy in Bisleri International Private Limited Vs Agrawal Food Product

Struggling to understand Trademark Law? Read our complete Trademark Law Guide.

The Commercial Division of the Bombay High Court, presided over by Justice Madhav J. Jamdar, adjudicated a dispute concerning intellectual property infringement and passing off in the matter of Bisleri International Private Limited Vs Agrawal Food Product (Commercial IP Suit No. 40195 of 2025). The plaintiff, Bisleri International Private Limited, initiated legal action against the defendant, Agrawal Food Product, seeking to protect its proprietary interests in the well-known packaged drinking water brand BISLERI. The primary grievance centered on the defendant’s unauthorized adoption and use of the mark BILSSERI.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant utilized the mark BILSSERI alongside artwork, labelling, and a bottle design that were deceptively similar to its own registered trade marks and copyrighted artistic works. By doing so, the defendant allegedly engaged in passing off its goods as those of the plaintiff, thereby confusing consumers and infringing upon the plaintiff’s established market presence. The suit encompassed multiple heads of relief, including a permanent injunction against the use of the infringing mark and associated trade dress, a mandatory injunction for the withdrawal of pending trade mark applications, and a prayer for the delivery-up and destruction of infringing materials.

Governing Legal Framework

The suit was filed under the framework of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the Copyright Act, 1957. The Trade Marks Act, 1999, which provides the mechanism for the registration and protection of trademarks, served as the primary basis for the plaintiff’s assertion of statutory rights against the infringement of its numerous registered marks. In tandem, the Copyright Act, 1957, which governs the protection of original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, was invoked to protect the specific artistic labels and get-up associated with the BISLERI product line. The suit also invoked the common law remedy of passing off, which protects against the misrepresentation of goods that causes damage to the goodwill and reputation of an established business entity.

The procedural aspects of the case were governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. This legislation mandates strict timelines and specialized procedures for the resolution of commercial disputes of a specified value, ensuring that IP litigation is handled with the requisite technical oversight. The Leave Petition, filed under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, allowed the court to exercise jurisdiction over the matter despite certain elements of the cause of action potentially arising outside the territorial limits of the court, provided leave was granted to initiate the suit.

Court’s Reasoning and Settlement Mechanics

Upon reviewing the pleadings and the Leave Petition, the court permitted the initiation of the suit. However, the core of the proceedings shifted when both parties informed the court that they had reached an amicable resolution to the dispute. This resolution was formalized through a comprehensive set of Consent Terms, which were presented to the court for record.

The execution of these terms involved significant procedural formalities. Mr. Shashank Parmar, authorized by a Board Resolution dated 27 February 2023, represented the plaintiff, while the proprietor of the defendant, Mr. Prabhudayal Agrawal, acted on behalf of the defendant. Both parties, appearing via video conferencing, affirmed their signatures on the Consent Terms. The court verified the authority and the voluntary nature of the agreement, thereafter marking the document as an exhibit for the court records.

The reasoning behind the court’s decree is rooted in the principle of party autonomy, where the court validates private settlements provided they align with the interests of justice and do not contravene statutory mandates. By incorporating the terms into a judicial decree, the court ensured that the defendant’s undertakings were elevated to the status of a court order, thereby providing the plaintiff with a robust mechanism for enforcement.

Holding and Relief

The Bombay High Court disposed of the suit by passing a decree in terms of the Consent Terms. The relief granted is extensive, addressing both past infringement and future compliance:

• Permanent Injunction: The defendant is restrained by a perpetual order of the court from manufacturing, distributing, or selling goods under the mark BILSSERI or any mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered BISLERI trade marks.
• Protection of Intellectual Assets: The defendant is prohibited from using the pirated artwork, label, or bottle design that mimics the plaintiff’s original artistic works and trade dress. This injunction extends to the shape of the bottles, effectively safeguarding the distinct visual identity of the BISLERI product.
• Regulatory Compliance: The defendant must formally withdraw its pending trade mark application (Application No. 6255882 in class 32) within one week and provide proof of this withdrawal to the plaintiff.
• Destruction of Infringing Goods: The defendant is required to destroy all materials, including bottles, caps, and labels bearing the infringing mark. This process is to be supervised in the presence of the plaintiff’s representative.
• Monetary Compensation: The defendant has paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 as mutually settled damages, which the plaintiff accepted as full and final resolution for its claims regarding damages.
• Contempt Provision: A significant protective clause was included; any violation of the settlement terms by the defendant would render the defendant liable for contempt of court, with an additional liability of Rs. 1,00,00,000 in further damages.

The court further addressed the administrative aspects of the suit by disposing of the Interim Application and the Court Receiver Report. The Court Receiver was discharged without the necessity of passing accounts, contingent upon the payment of relevant costs. The court also granted the refund of court fees, adhering to standard practices for settled commercial disputes.

Also Read: Calcutta HC Returns ITC Plaint for Skipping Section 12A Mediation

Practical Significance

This order underscores the efficacy of consent decrees in resolving complex IP litigation. By settling, the parties bypassed the extended timelines associated with a full trial, which often involves protracted evidence recording and cross-examination. For the practitioner, this case illustrates the importance of robust document drafting in Consent Terms, particularly the inclusion of specific punitive clauses to deter future infringements.

The inclusion of a clear “contempt of court” warning linked to a specific monetary penalty serves as a deterrent that goes beyond simple civil liability. This ensures that the defendant has a substantial financial incentive to maintain strict compliance with the terms of the settlement. Furthermore, the explicit requirement for the defendant to withdraw its own trade mark applications creates a clean slate for the plaintiff, removing the clutter of similar marks from the Trade Marks Registry.

For law students and practitioners, the case highlights how the Commercial Division of the Bombay High Court streamlines IP litigation through the effective use of technology, such as video conferencing, and the pragmatic application of settlement procedures. The case serves as an example of how large corporate entities can secure their proprietary rights against minor infringers through a settlement framework that combines injunctive relief, destruction of goods, and compensation, without requiring the court to the evidentiary merits of a trial.

The case also confirms the validity of relying on authorized representatives in corporate litigation. The court’s acceptance of a board resolution as sufficient proof of authorization reaffirms that corporate entities must maintain precise and updated records of internal authorizations to navigate the litigation process effectively. Finally, the discharge of the Court Receiver subject to costs clarifies the practical pathway for winding up judicial oversight once a dispute has been resolved through mutual agreement.

In essence, the order in Bisleri International Private Limited Vs Agrawal Food Product serves as a model for how intellectual property disputes can be concluded decisively and efficiently. It balances the need for the protection of established commercial reputation with the procedural flexibility afforded by the Commercial Courts Act, ensuring that the final judgment is not merely a record of agreement but an enforceable instrument of justice.