Bajaj Electricals Limited vs Gourav Bajaj And Anr on 3 March, 2020
4.4.3 Mala Fide Intent: Respondent No. 1, being part of
the same industry, had prior knowledge about the existence of
the Applicant 's mark Shrinath. Despite this
knowledge, Respondent No. 1 proceeded to register a similar
mark, demonstrate its mala fide intent to deceive the public
and trade off the Applicant's reputation. Bombay High Court in
the case of Bajaj Electricals Ltd. vs Gourav Bajaj and Anr. ;
having similar facts of matter held that, "The Plaintiff was
Page 9 of 19
Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 28 23:29:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/RA/25/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2025
undefined
using the name and mark BAJAJ since 1961; BAJAJ has been
recognized as a well-known mark, both by Courts as well as
by Registry; Plaintiff has hundreds of registration for their
mark BAJAJ and marks derived from BAJAJ issued in their
favour; Plaintiffs turnover runs into crores; while examining the
Defendants' mark, the Registrar has cited Plaintiff's marks. All
these factors support the contention of the Plaintiff that the
adoption and use by Defendants of their impugned name and
mark is dishonest."