Introduction
The case of Ceat Limited vs Ramu Kushwha, adjudicated by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, delves into a significant intellectual property dispute involving trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. The plaintiff, Ceat Limited, a prominent manufacturer of automotive tyres with a legacy dating back to 1924, sought to protect its well-known trademark “CEAT” and associated artistic works against the defendants, Ramu Kushwha and another, who allegedly used deceptively similar marks such as “CREATA,” “CATE,” and “CAT” for identical goods.
This interim application, decided on August 12, 2025, builds upon an earlier ex-parte ad-interim relief granted in October 2023, addressing the defendants’ objections on jurisdiction, non-infringement, and the maintainability of the passing off action. The judgment underscores the protection of established trademarks and the legal implications of using similar marks in the marketplace.
Factual Background
Ceat Limited traces its origins to 1924 when Ceat SpA was established in Italy, with Ceat Gomma SpA commencing the sale of pneumatic and solid tyres under the trademark “CEAT”—an acronym for Electric Cables and Allied Products of Turin—since 1951.
The plaintiff, incorporated in India in 1958 as Ceat Tyres of India Limited, began manufacturing and marketing tyres under a license from Ceat SpA in 1960. Through assignments in 1978 and 2010, Ceat Limited acquired full rights to the “CEAT” trademark globally, operating over 450 retail outlets across India.
The company holds registrations for the “CEAT” word mark since 1961, label mark since 1987, and logo since 2020, with a turnover exceeding Rs. 11,088 crores and promotional expenses over Rs. 21,235 crores in 2022-2023. The defendants were found selling tyre tubes under marks “CREATA” and “CATE,” later amended to include “CAT,” using packaging deceptively similar to Ceat’s artistic label, prompting this legal action.
Procedural Background
The plaintiff initiated Commercial IP Suit No. 311 of 2023, with Interim Application No. 4131 of 2025 filed to enforce and amend earlier reliefs. An ex-parte ad-interim order was granted on October 20, 2023, restraining the defendants from using the impugned marks, executed by the Court Receiver, which uncovered the additional mark “CAT.”
The defendants raised objections via a reply affidavit, challenging jurisdiction and alleging non-infringement. The plaintiff sought leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent to combine causes of action, which was granted. Arguments were heard, with the matter reserved on July 30, 2025, and the order pronounced on August 12, 2025, by Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh.
Core Dispute
The central dispute revolves around whether the defendants’ use of “CREATA,” “CATE,” and “CAT” constitutes infringement of the plaintiff’s registered “CEAT” trademark and copyright in its artistic label, as well as passing off their goods as those of the plaintiff.
Key issues include:
- Territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court
- Defendants’ claim that “CEAT” is a common English word or publici juris
- Distinction between tyres (plaintiff) and butyl tubes (defendants)
The plaintiff asserts its well-known status and prior use, while the defendants argue no confusion arises due to different product categories and the absence of sales within the court’s jurisdiction.
Discussion on Judgments
The plaintiff referenced N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation, (1996) 5 SCC 714, to assert that a well-known trademark’s goodwill extends beyond registered goods.
The defendants implied reliance on cases like American Home Products Corporation v. Mac Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1986 SC 137, arguing that descriptive marks lack exclusivity.
The court considered:
- Kirloskar Diesel Recon Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd., AIR 1996 Bom 149 – jurisdiction validity
- Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah, (2002) 3 SCC 65 – passing off and protection of goodwill
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh emphasized Ceat Limited’s established goodwill and reputation, recognized as a well-known mark since 2020. The court held that the defendants’ marks were deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion.
The jurisdictional challenge was dismissed, as the plaintiff’s registered office in Mumbai conferred jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957. The claim that “CEAT” is a common word was rejected as it is a coined mark with long-standing use. Copyright infringement was also upheld due to imitation of artistic packaging.
Final Decision
The court upheld the interim order dated October 20, 2023, and extended the amended relief concerning the “CAT” mark. The defendants were restrained from using “CREATA,” “CATE,” “CAT,” or any deceptively similar marks infringing the plaintiff’s rights. Jurisdictional and non-infringement objections were overruled.
Law Settled in This Case
This judgment clarifies:
- Well-known trademarks are protected against deceptively similar marks, even across related goods.
- Territorial jurisdiction is valid where the plaintiff carries on business under Section 134(2).
- Coined/acronym-based marks enjoy exclusivity if backed by longstanding use and goodwill.
- Copying artistic packaging constitutes copyright infringement.
- Passing off actions are valid where confusion among consumers is likely.
Case Details
- Case Title: Ceat Limited vs Ramu Kushwha & Anr.
- Date of Order: 12 August, 2025
- Case Number: Commercial IP Suit No. 311 of 2023
- Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:13264
- Court: High Court of Bombay
- Judge: Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor – Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539
