Bombay High Court grants interim restraint on use of "GERMINATOR", quashes trial court order and restores injunction

A Division Bench of Justices R. I. Chagla and Advait M. Sethna heard an appeal by Dr. Bawaskar Technology (Agro) Pvt. Ltd. challenging the Commercial Court, Pune's order of 4 October 2025 refusing to continue an ad‑interim injunction in a passing‑off and trademark dispute concerning the mark "GERMINATOR" and associated trade dress. The appeal tested principles of trademark classification, distinctiveness and the scope of interim relief under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned order dated 4 October 2025, and granted interlocutory relief restraining the respondents from passing off the mark "GERMINATOR" or any deceptively similar mark or trade dress pending trial. The Court concluded that the appellant had established a prima facie case and that the "balance of convenience lies clearly in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff who would sustain irreparable harm/prejudice if such relief is refused." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In other words, the statutory provisions as noted above, under the Trade Mark Act provide for a categorical classification as envisaged under the Abercrombie Spectrum in the case of Abercrombie & Fitch Company v. Hunting World, Incorporated. The Trial Court ought to have been cautious in applying the expressions ‘generic’ and ‘descriptive’ to the mark 'GERMINATOR'. This, more particularly, when the concepts, connotations and legal implications flowing from these are distinct and different." The Bench noted that the Trial Court had proceeded on findings “that are not well founded, conflicting with the well settled legal parameters,” and held that the trifecta for injunction — a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable prejudice — was made out for the appellant.

Background The appellant traced continuous use of the mark "GERMINATOR" to 1981 and relied on sales records, promotional material, invoices and a UK registration to show acquired distinctiveness and goodwill. It alleged that the respondents began marketing an identical or deceptively similar product and trade dress and that one respondent proposed to launch a product as "HARMONY" copying the appellant's registered mark. The appellant obtained an ex‑parte ad‑interim injunction on 2 April 2025; the respondents sought vacation and, during hearings, filed an amended label and stated willingness to change trade dress. The Trial Court ultimately rejected continuation of the injunction on 4 October 2025, recording that the word "GERMINATOR" was generic/descriptive and that the respondents’ altered packaging sufficiently distinguished their product.

On appeal the appellant contended that the Trial Court erred by treating "GERMINATOR" as generic, by adjudicating on a subsequently amended label rather than the impugned packaging, and by failing to apply the correct tests for distinctiveness and likelihood of confusion. The respondents argued that "GERMINATOR" described the product’s germination use, that the appellant had not proved continuous exclusive use since 1981, and that earlier suits and prosecution history justified denying equitable relief. The High Court analysed Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act and relevant precedents, emphasising the Abercrombie spectrum of marks (generic, descriptive, suggestive, arbitrary/fanciful) and the necessity to test distinctiveness by the evidence adduced. The Bench found that the respondents had not discharged the burden of showing widespread third‑party use and that the appellant had demonstrated prior and extensive use sufficient to establish a prima facie entitlement to relief. The Court held that permitting defendants to seek a judicial "seal of approval" for unilateral, piecemeal changes to labels would be improper and noted precedent that de minimis fixes do not cure confusion sown by initial infringing use. The appeal was allowed, injunctions issued restraining passing off, the interim application was disposed of, and the Court directed parties to maintain status quo for four weeks from upload of the judgment to accommodate any orderly compliance and further steps.

Case Details: Case No.: 2026:BHC-AS:12950-DB Case Title: Dr. Bawaskar Technology (Agro) Pvt. Ltd. v. Anannya Agro Products & Anr. (Commercial Appeal from Order No.28 of 2025 in Commercial Suit No.9 of 2025) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Hiren Kamod, with Mr. Sumedh Ruikar, instructed by RK Dewan Legal Services For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shailendra Kanetkar, instructed by Mr. Akshay Karlekar