Bombay High Court Bars Chemco Plast From Using “CHEMCO” As Trademark, Allows Use As Domain Name
The Bombay High Court has partly granted an interim injunction in favour of Chemco Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd, restraining rival plastic manufacturer Chemco Plast from using the marks “CHEMCO” or “CHEMCO PLAST” as trademarks. However, the Court declined to stop the firm from using “Chemco” as its trade name or domain name, citing its long and concurrent use.A single bench of...
The Bombay High Court has partly granted an interim injunction in favour of Chemco Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd, restraining rival plastic manufacturer Chemco Plast from using the marks “CHEMCO” or “CHEMCO PLAST” as trademarks. However, the Court declined to stop the firm from using “Chemco” as its trade name or domain name, citing its long and concurrent use.
A single bench of Justice N J Jamadar passed the order on December 03, 2025, in an interim injunction application filed by Chemco Plastic in its trademark infringement suit against Chemco Plast.
Chemco Plastic argued that it is the registered proprietor of "CHEMCO” across multiple classes and accused Chemco Plast of dishonestly adopting the identical mark as a trademark, trade name, and domain name to mislead customers and ride on its goodwill. It relied on registrations dating back to 2012 and claimed continuous use since 1973 through its predecessors.
Chemco Plast countered that it had independently used “Chemco” since 1977 through its predecessor and had operated under the name “Chemco Plast” for more than two decades. It denied using “Chemco” as a trademark and alleged that Chemco Plastic had suppressed material facts, delayed legal action, and acquiesced in its long use.
On assessing the rival claims of prior use, the court noted that Chemco Plastic had not produced prima facie evidence to show that the "CHEMCO” mark and goodwill had been properly assigned by its predecessor.
The Court noted, “the Plaintiff who seeks interim relief on the basis of prior user, prima facie, failed to establish the nexus between the predecessor-in-interest of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.”
Turning to Chemco Plast's stand that it used “Chemco” only as a trade name and not as a trademark, the Court pointed out that the firm had **itself filed several trademark applications for “CHEMCO” and “CHEMCO PLAST”.
“Resultantly a prima facie case that the Defendant has invaded, attempted to invade and in the least, threatened to invade the rights of the Plaintiff as a registered proprietor of the trade marks, can be said to have been made out,” the Court said.
On the passing-off claim, the court found that both companies had begun use of “CHEMCO” around the same period that is 1998 for Chemco Plastic and 1999 for Chemco Plast. With only a one-year gap, the court held that Chemco Plastic had not built significant goodwill for Chemco Plast's use to amount to riding on its reputation. No passing-off injunction was therefore justified at this stage.
Considering balance of convenience, the court emphasised that both companies had used “CHEMCO” for nearly 25 years and that there was no prima facie evidence of dishonest adoption by Chemco Plast. A blanket injunction, it said, would unfairly harm Chemco Plast.
However, the court held that Chemco Plast could not be allowed to use “CHEMCO” or “CHEMCO PLAST” as trademarks, given its previous attempts to register the marks. At the same time, it permitted the firm to continue using “Chemco” as a trade name or domain name due to its longstanding market presence.
Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the interim injunction application, restraining Chemco Plast from using “CHEMCO” or “CHEMCO PLAST” as trademarks, while allowing continued use of “Chemco” as its business name or domain name.
Case Title: Chemco Plastic Industries Pvt Ltd. v. M/s Chemco Plast
Case Number: IA No. 2165/2024 in Commercial IP Suit No. 80/2024
For the Applicant: Senior Advocate Dr Veerendra Tulzapurkar with Advocates Hiren Kamod, Farhad Sorabjee, Pratik Pawar, Siddhesh S. Pradhan, Meher Mistri and Aneez Patel, instructed by J Sagar Associates
For the Respondent: Advocate Rashmin Khandeka with Anand Mohan, Maitri Asher and I.K. Paranjape instructed by W.S. Kane & Co.