Bombay High Court Permanently Injuncts 'SUPER ASIAN PLUS' Trademark In Asian Paints Suit

Justice Arif S. Doctor, on 20 February 2026 also directed three of the defendants to each pay Rs 3 lakh in compensatory costs.

Asian Paints submitted that it had been using its house mark “ASIAN PAINTS” continuously since 1952 and the mark “ASIAN” since 1965.

It was claimed that due to the enormous business and the distinctive nature of these marks, valuable common law rights had accrued in its favour. They alleged that the manufacturers of “SUPER ASIAN PLUS” wall putty and cement paint were using a fictitious name, Super Gloss Paints, to mislead and/or to escape liability.

In its findings, the Court held that Asian Paints' trademark registrations were valid and subsisting and that the “statutory rights flowing from such registrations are therefore firmly established”.

Based on evidence including turnover figures that grew from approximately ₹12,000 crores in 2013-14 to over ₹29,000 crores in 2024-25, the Court observed that Asian Paints had proved “longstanding and extensive commercial use” of its marks.

Regarding the rival marks, the Court found that the word “ASIAN” constitutes the “leading, prominent and essential feature of the impugned mark”.

Justice Doctor observed that the addition of the words “SUPER” and “PLUS” does not “materially distinguish the mark”, making the likelihood of confusion probable.

Consequently, the court held that Asian Paints had “clearly made out a case for both infringement of its registered trade marks and passing off.”

The Court noted that while Asian Paints claimed ₹5,00,000 in damages, it did not lead any evidence in support of its claim or to prove the actual loss suffered. However, the Court took a stern view of the defendants' conduct, observing they were negligent in prosecuting the matter and had compelled Asian Paints to incur substantial and wholly avoidable expenditure.

The Court observed that the defendants' failure to contest the proceedings lent further credence to the view that their conduct was actuated by bad faith.

Under the mandate of Section 35 of the CPC (as amended by the Commercial Courts Act), the Court decreed the suit in terms of the prayers for a perpetual injunction and the delivery-up of all infringing materials for destruction.

Three of the defendants were each ordered to pay the Rs 3 lakh as costs to Asian Paints within eight weeks, failing which an interest rate of 8% per annum would apply.

For Asian Paints: Advocates Vinod Bhagat, Apeksha Mehta & Twisha Singh