Delhi High Court Restrains Surat-Based Sellers From Using 'BOMBAY MUSK' Mark On Counterfeit Perfumes

The Delhi High Court on 7 May restrained sellers from manufacturing, marketing, advertising, or selling counterfeit perfumes and personal care products under the “BOMBAY MUSK” mark and deceptively similar variants, holding that such activities were likely to deceive consumers and damage the plaintiff's goodwill.

Justice Tejas Karia granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of BG Innovators LLP against Wellness Club and Krishiv Enterprise, both based in Surat, Gujarat, after finding that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case of infringement and passing off. He observed:

“The Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction. The balance of convenience is in favour of the Plaintiff and against Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Irreparable injury would be caused to the Plaintiff if an ex-parte ad-interim injunction is not granted.”

BG Innovators LLP filed the suit against Wellness Club, Krishiv Enterprise, and various 'John Doe' sellers operating on the Flipkart marketplace, seeking relief against alleged copyright infringement and passing off.

The fragrance manufacturer approached the Court after discovering that the defendants were allegedly selling counterfeit perfumes under the identical mark “BOMBAY MUSK” and a deceptively similar variant, “BOMBAYMUSKY”. It also alleged that the defendants had copied its proprietary trade dress and packaging across 12 product variants.

In support of its case, the plaintiff produced consumer complaints regarding the inferior quality of the products sold by the defendants. It further alleged that the defendants were artificially inflating the credibility of their online listings by inserting vouchers in product packages promising 100% cashback in exchange for five-star ratings.

After considering the material on record, the Court held that BG Innovators LLP had made out a strong prima facie case against Wellness Club and Krishiv Enterprise.

It observed that “there is a strong likelihood that unwary consumers will be duped into buying the counterfeit products by believing them to be originating from the Plaintiff, which is detrimental to not only the reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiff, but is also detrimental to the consumers as they are being deceived into buying inferior quality products of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2.”

Justice Karia appointed two Local Commissioners to visit the defendants' premises at Amroli, Surat, to inspect, seize, and seal counterfeit products, packaging materials, and account books. He also directed Flipkart to immediately take down the identified URLs and disclose the complete KYC and bank account details of the infringing sellers in a sealed cover.

The matter is scheduled for further hearing on 19 August 2026 after the Local Commissioners submit their reports and the defendants file their written statements.