Bombay High Court Temporarily Restrains Niravi From Using 'SAPAT' Trademark For Tea

The Bombay High Court has restrained Niravi Consumer LLP and its associated entities from using the trademark "SAPAT" in relation to tea, holding that they failed to establish any independent right to use the mark for tea.

Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh held that Niravi's continued use of "SAPAT" signages while selling "NIRAVI" tea was likely to cause confusion and infringed SAPAT International Private Limited's registered trademark.

"the consumers would enter the shops being drawn by the signages outside the outlets under the belief that SAPAT tea is being sold in the shops... the consumers would be confused as to whether the NIRAVI tea is associated with SAPAT tea.", the court noted.

SAPAT sought an injunction restraining Niravi Consumer LLP and others from manufacturing, marketing, or selling tea under the "SAPAT" mark and from operating tea outlets displaying the mark.

The company claimed that, under a 1995 family arrangement, it became the proprietor of the "SAPAT" trademark for tea, while Sapat Global Health Private Limited held rights over the mark for Class 3 and 5 products.

It alleged that after tea supplies were discontinued in June 2024, Niravi began selling tea under the "NIRAVI" brand while continuing to display "SAPAT" on shop signages and in connection with the sale of tea.

Rejecting Niravi's claim of independent rights over the mark, the court found there was no material to show that Sapat & Co. Nashik was a separate entity entitled to use "SAPAT" for tea.

"There is no explanation as to how the Defendant No 2 which is an LLP incorporated on 20th January, 2015 could be trading as Sapat & Co. (Nashik) since last seven decades." the court noted.

The court further observed, "The solitary purchase invoice of the year 1990 and shop act license of 1973, are not sufficient to persuade this Court to come to a prima facie finding that Sapat & Co., Nashik is an independent entity."

The court clarified that Sapat Global Health could use the "SAPAT" mark for its Class 3 and 5 products, but held that displaying the mark outside outlets selling NIRAVI tea was likely to create an association with SAPAT tea and cause consumer confusion.

"There cannot be any insistence by the Defendants to use the mark SAPAT outside outlets selling NIRAVI TEA along with Class 3 and 5 products, when any such use indicates an association with the Plaintiff's mark SAPAT in respect of tea and is bound to lead to confusion.", the court ruled.

On the passing off claim, the court noted the goodwill attached to the "SAPAT" mark and referred to an outstanding amount of about ₹74 lakh arising from tea supplied between April and June 2024.

It held that using SAPAT signages and other representations in connection with NIRAVI tea amounted to misrepresentation.

"Insofar as the misrepresentation is concerned, the use of signages outside its outlets by Defendant No.2 depicting the mark SAPAT, the use of the mark by its franchisees on its invoices, misrepresentation of franchisees as Sapat retail outlets and use of adhesive tape depicting the mark SAPAT for sale of NIRAVI tea constitutes act of misrepresentation that the tea marketed under the mark NIRAVI is associated with the Plaintiff's Sapat tea", the court ruled.

However, the court declined to hold that Niravi had violated the statement recorded in January 2025, observing that it was confined to the use of the mark on packaged tea and there was no material showing a breach.

The court consequently restrained Niravi Consumer LLP and the other entities from manufacturing, marketing, or selling tea under the "SAPAT" mark or operating tea outlets displaying the mark, pending disposal of the suit.

The operation of the injunction was stayed for four weeks at Niravi's request.