"Entirely Dishonest": Bombay High Court Grants Injunction To UltraTech Cement Against Infringing 'Ultra' Marks

The Bombay High Court has granted a permanent injunction restraining a rival cement maker from using marks deceptively similar to UltraTech, holding that the adoption was “entirely dishonest” and “actuated in bad faith.”

In a judgment pronounced on April 28, 2026, Justice Arif S. Doctor decreed the suit in favour of UltraTech Cement Limited and Grasim Industries Limited, while also awarding more than Rs. 66 lakh towards costs and litigation expenses.

“The manner in which the impugned marks are used on the Defendant's impugned cement bags, more particularly, the get-up, placement, colour scheme, and general idea of the impugned marks, which makes evident the Defendant's mala fide adoption and use of the impugned marks. The similarities between the rival trade marks cannot be a matter of coincidence.”

The dispute concerned the use of marks such as “ULTRA PLUS,” “ULTRA HI-TOUCH,” and “ULTRA POWER” by Shiv Cement Co. in relation to cement, which UltraTech Cement Limited argued were visually, structurally, and phonetically similar to its registered “UltraTech” trademarks.

Accepting the contention, the court held that the impugned marks were “virtually identical to, and, in any event, deceptively similar” to UltraTech Cement Limited's marks, noting that the prominent use of the word “ULTRA” and the overall trade dress reinforced the likelihood of confusion.

“I have no hesitation in holding that the use of the impugned marks is without due cause and is likely to take advantage of the distinctive character and goodwill associated with the Plaintiffs' trade marks.”

The court also noted that Shiv Cement had failed to appear in the proceedings despite service of summons, had not filed a written statement, and had neither led evidence nor cross-examined UltraTech Cement Limited's witness, leaving the case uncontroverted.

On the issue of conduct, the Court held that the actions of Shiv Cement were “ex facie dishonest and lacking in bona fides.”

UltraTech Cement Limited submitted that it has used the “UltraTech” mark continuously since 2003 and that the mark has acquired significant goodwill and recognition, including being treated as a well-known trademark.

It further argued that Shiv Cement Co. had made only “minor and insignificant changes” to its branding in an attempt to trade upon its reputation, an argument that formed part of UltraTech Cement Limited's case, which the Court ultimately upheld.

UltraTech Cement Limited also pointed to the seizure of over 1,100 cement bags bearing the impugned marks by a Court Receiver pursuant to an earlier order. It additionally relied on a local media report to allege that substandard cement bearing similar marks was being circulated in Punjab and used in government projects.

Taking note of the conduct of the rival cement maker and the nature of infringement, the Court held that UltraTech Cement Limited and Grasim Industries Limited were entitled to injunctive relief as well as costs.

It awarded Rs. 50 lakh in costs and Rs.16,48,006 towards litigation expenses, observing that the conduct had forced UltraTech Cement Limited to incur “substantial and avoidable expenditure.”

The court also directed the destruction of infringing materials, including cement bags, packaging, and stationery bearing the deceptive marks.