- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Madras High Court
- /
- Madras High Court Jails Contemnor...
Madras High Court Jails Contemnor For Repeated Breach Of HUL's 'WHEEL' Trademark Injunction
Ayushi Shukla
28 Nov 2025 7:03 PM IST
The Madras High Court has sentenced the proprietor of Roopa Industries to three months civil imprisonment and attached the company's property for repeatedly breaching an injunction protecting HUL's 'WHEEL' and 'ACTIVE WHEEL' trademarks.In an order passed on November 26, 2025, Justice N Senthilkumar found that Roopa Industries had continued using deceptively similar marks despite a...
The Madras High Court has sentenced the proprietor of Roopa Industries to three months civil imprisonment and attached the company's property for repeatedly breaching an injunction protecting HUL's 'WHEEL' and 'ACTIVE WHEEL' trademarks.
In an order passed on November 26, 2025, Justice N Senthilkumar found that Roopa Industries had continued using deceptively similar marks despite a subsisting injunction, and held that its conduct warranted action under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which prescribes consequences for disobedience or breach of injunction.
The dispute arose from HUL's allegation that the Karnataka-based manufacturer initially sold detergent under the mark 'DOUBLE WHALE' before shifting to 'DOUBLE WHEEL', a mark HUL said was even more confusingly similar to its updated ACTIVE WHEEL packaging. In 2020, the Court had made absolute an earlier interim injunction restraining the company from using the impugned mark.
HUL told the Court that Roopa Industries had openly flouted the injunction by adopting the modified 'DOUBLE WHEEL' label during the period the restraint order was in force. It also highlighted that the proprietor secured registration of the 'DOUBLE WHEEL' mark while the injunction continued to operate.
Roopa Industries opposed the application on the ground of maintainability, contending that HUL's authorisation, verification and power of attorney were defective. Relying on Supreme Court and Karnataka High Court rulings, it argued that the underlying suit was itself invalid.
Rejecting these objections, the High Court said the core issue before it was the company's disobedience of the injunction. After reviewing the record, it held that Roopa Industries had “continuously flouted the orders of this Court.”
Referring to Order XXXIX Rule 2-A and the Supreme Court's decision in Anil Panjwani, the judge noted that the Court is empowered to attach the contemnor's property and order civil detention for such violations.
Allowing HUL's application, the Court directed attachment of Roopa Industries' property in the pending suit and ordered the proprietor-Satish Honahalli's detention in civil prison for three months
Case Title: Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Roopa Industries
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 453
Case Number: A. No.1861 of 2025
For the Appellant: Advocate B Madhan Babu
For the Respondents: Advocate LM. Akki
Click Here To Read/Download Order