Bombay High Court Grants Interim Injunction To Asian Paints Against Use Of “ASIA TUFF” For Paint And Wall Putty

The Bombay High Court has granted an interim injunction in favour of Asian Paints Limited, restraining a rival firm from using the mark “ASIA TUFF” for cement paint and wall putty.

In an order dated March 13, 2026, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh observed that the rival marks show deceptive visual as well as phonetic similarity, giving rise to a strong likelihood of consumer confusion.

The litigation had initially covered several product labels. During the proceedings, the defendants Tarun Paints Private Limited and Tarun Brush Industries informed the court that they were willing to revise certain other disputed marks.

After recording this statement, the Court noted that the dispute now stood confined to the question of whether the use of “ASIA TUFF” infringes the registered trademark “ASIAN PAINTS”.

Asian Paints Limited filed the suit and interim application seeking to restrain the defendants from using the mark “ASIA TUFF”, contending that it is deceptively similar to its registered trademark “ASIAN PAINTS."

The company stated that it has used the mark continuously since 1952 and that the word “ASIAN” is the dominant and distinctive feature of its trademark. It also pointed out that the Registrar of Trade Marks had earlier raised objections to the defendants' applications for registration of “ASIA TUFF”, citing the plaintiff's prior mark, and that the applications were subsequently abandoned.

Defending the mark, Tarun Paints and Tarun Brush Industries claimed that they were prior adopters, asserting use of “ASIA TUFF” since 2002. They argued that the marks must be compared as a whole and that Asian Paints could not claim exclusive rights over the word “ASIAN” as there was no standalone registration of that word.

The defendants also relied on an affidavit from a common distributor stating that both companies' products had been displayed side-by-side for several years without any confusion and pleaded delay and acquiescence, contending that Asian Paints had knowledge of their products for many years before filing the suit.

After comparing the rival marks, the Court held that the dominant feature of the plaintiff's mark is the word “ASIAN” and that the impugned mark gives prominence to the word “ASIA”, which is likely to be taken as “ASIAN”. The Court observed:

“The products marketed under the rival marks are paints/wall putty etc, and the relevant consumers would be contractors or labourers involved in renovation, construction work etc. The test of average man with imperfect recollection when applied, considering the relevant consumer base, prima facie the consumers would ask for the Plaintiff's product by referring to the name ASIAN which is the striking element and will most probably be likely to be confused when confronted with the Defendant's product bearing the mark ASIA TUFF.”

Rejecting the defence of prior use, the Court noted that although the defendants claimed use since 2002, only four invoices from 2017 were produced, which were insufficient to establish continuous or extensive use. The court observed that the invoices were sporadic and failed to establish such presence in the market as would come to the plaintiff's knowledge.

It also noted that the Registrar of Trade Marks had raised objections to the mark as early as 2002, and the defendants ought to have been aware that continued use of the mark would be at their own peril.

On the claim of passing off, however, the Court found no prima facie case, observing that the packaging, colour scheme and additional elements used by the defendants were sufficiently distinct to avoid misrepresentation.

Holding that a prima facie case of trademark infringement was made out, the Court confirmed the ad-interim relief and restrained the defendants, during the pendency of the suit, from manufacturing, marketing or using the mark “ASIA TUFF” or any similar mark in relation to cement paint, wall putty, paints, or allied goods.