Bombay High Court Imposes ₹82 Lakh Costs On Hair Cream Manufacturer For Breaching 'NOVA' Trademark Injunction

The Bombay High Court has imposed more than ₹82 lakh in costs on the proprietor of a brilliantine hair cream manufacturing business after holding that he wilfully violated a 2010 injunction.

The court found that he continued to market products under the 'NONI' label and the 'NOVA MINI' mark despite being restrained from using Dr. Ashok M. Bhat's registered 'NOVA' trademark and artistic work.

Justice Arif S. Doctor directed Harichand Nagpal, sole proprietor of Ravi Industries, to pay ₹32.42 lakh towards the legal costs incurred by Dr. Bhat in pursuing the proceedings, subject to the applicant placing the details on record by way of an affidavit.

The court also imposed ₹50 lakh as exemplary costs, taking the total amount payable to more than ₹82 lakh. Nagpal was further directed to disclose on oath the complete sales of goods sold under the counterfeit label, the 'NONI' label and the 'NOVA MINI' mark within four weeks.

The court warned that his defence in the trademark suit would be struck off if he failed to comply with these directions.

"The conduct of Respondents is as brazen as it is patently dishonest. It is clear that the Respondents are colluding to hoodwink this Court and defeat the Orders of injunction.", the court noted.

Dr. Bhat is the registered proprietor of the 'NOVA' trademark and its artistic label used for brilliantine hair cream. He approached the court after discovering in 2007 that Ravi Industries was selling counterfeit products bearing an identical 'NOVA' label.

In November 2010, the High Court restrained Nagpal from using the 'NOVA' mark, any deceptively similar mark and Bhat's registered artistic work.

According to the order, Dr. Bhat later found that the products were being sold under the 'NONI' label. Although the word mark had changed, the artwork remained virtually identical to his registered artistic work.

That prompted contempt proceedings. In February 2025, a court receiver executing an order in another suit found products bearing the 'NONI' label and the 'NOVA MINI' mark at Ravi Industries' premises. The receiver also recorded that Kamlesh Nagpal, Harichand Nagpal's son, introduced himself as the proprietor of the business.

Rejecting Nagpal's contention that the injunction did not extend to the 'NONI' label, the court noted that he had himself sought clarification in 2014 to exempt that label from the injunction.

"Had the order of injunction not extended to the 'NONI' label, there would have been no occasion whatsoever to seek such clarification.", the court noted.

The court also found Nagpal's disclosure of sales figures to be incomplete. Before the Trade Marks Registry, he had disclosed sales of about ₹1.31 crore for products sold under the 'NOVA' mark.

In these proceedings, however, he furnished figures only from 2019 onwards, disclosing sales of ₹83.46 lakh for 'NONI' products while claiming older records were unavailable.

"This omission is deliberate and assumes significance... The selective disclosure of material by Respondent No. 1 casts serious doubt on the true extent of the sales effected in breach of the order of injunction.", the court observed.

Nagpal also claimed that a recently appointed employee had mistakenly affixed old 'NOVA MINI' labels to the products. The court rejected the explanation.

"I am unable to accept the contention that the labels bearing the 'NOVA MINI' were printed by a former employee of Ravi Industries by mistake.", the court ruled.

The court also observed that Nagpal was a habitual counterfeiter, noting that he had previously been found to have manufactured and sold counterfeit 'VASELINE' products in another commercial intellectual property suit. It further noted that Kamlesh Nagpal had not denied the allegations of breach despite being impleaded in the proceedings.

While declining to send Nagpal to prison in view of his age, the court directed him to pay the legal and exemplary costs within four weeks. It also directed him to file a complete account of sales of goods sold under the counterfeit label, the 'NONI' label and the 'NOVA MINI' mark.

After receiving the disclosure, the court will determine the amount to be deposited during the pendency of the suit.

After pronouncing the order, the court rejected Nagpal's request for a six-week stay. It observed that he had already been granted four weeks to comply with its directions