Justice Senthilkumar saiad that the injunction continued to operate through the period in which the impugned mark was used and later registered. The Court also noted that the separate civil suit filed by the respondent in Karnataka could not alter the fact that the restraint order was in force and was being ignored. After considering the submissions and the evidence, the Court held that HUL’s application deserved acceptance. In the operative directions, the Court said: “the property in the name of the 1st respondent, namely Roopa Industries, shall be attached to the civil suit in C.S. No.427 of 2015 and the second respondent shall be detained in the civil prison for a period of three months.”
[30/11, 17:15] Sekarreporter: https://www.bwlegalworld.com/article/madras-hc-sends-roopa-industries-proprietor-to-civil-prison-for-violating-hul-s-wheel-trademark-injunction-581777
[30/11, 17:15] Sekarreporter: Home
Other Legal News
Madras HC Sends Roopa Industries Proprietor To Civil Prison For Violating HUL’s ‘WHEEL’ Trademark Injunction
Madras HC Sends Roopa Industries Proprietor To Civil Prison For Violating HUL’s ‘WHEEL’ Trademark Injunction
BW Online Bureau Nov 29, 2025
The case stemmed from a long-running trademark dispute in which HUL accused the Karnataka-based manufacturer of selling detergent under the mark ‘DOUBLE WHALE’, followed by a switch to ‘DOUBLE WHEEL’
Hindustan unilever Limited BW Business World
The Madras High Court has sentenced the proprietor of Roopa Industries to three months in civil prison and directed attachment of the company’s property for repeated breach of an injunction protecting Hindustan Unilever Limited’s trademarks ‘WHEEL’ and ‘ACTIVE WHEEL’. The order was delivered by Justice N. Senthilkumar.
The case stemmed from a long-running trademark dispute in which HUL accused the Karnataka-based manufacturer of selling detergent under the mark ‘DOUBLE WHALE’, followed by a switch to ‘DOUBLE WHEEL’. HUL said that this shift created even more confusion among consumers because the label resembled its upgraded ACTIVE WHEEL packaging. The Court had granted an injunction against the earlier mark, which later became absolute, yet the defendant continued with the modified packaging. HUL told the Court that the respondent even secured registration for the ‘DOUBLE WHEEL’ mark while the injunction operated, which deepened the allegation of deliberate breach.
Roopa Industries attempted to resist the application by challenging the maintainability of the parent suit. It argued that HUL’s pleadings, board authorisation and verification were defective and relied on Supreme Court and Karnataka High Court rulings to push this point. Justice Senthilkumar found that these objections did not answer the real issue before the Court, which was whether the defendant disobeyed the injunction. After reviewing the record, the Court said that the respondent’s actions showed sustained disregard of its directions.
While analysing the scope of Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Anil Panjwani, where the principle relating to denial of participation in proceedings for persistent contempt was explained. The Court said:
“the court would be justified in withholding access to the court or participation in the proceedings from the contemner.”
Justice Senthilkumar saiad that the injunction continued to operate through the period in which the impugned mark was used and later registered. The Court also noted that the separate civil suit filed by the respondent in Karnataka could not alter the fact that the restraint order was in force and was being ignored.
After considering the submissions and the evidence, the Court held that HUL’s application deserved acceptance. In the operative directions, the Court said:
“the property in the name of the 1st respondent, namely Roopa Industries, shall be attached to the civil suit in C.S. No.427 of 2015 and the second respondent shall be detained in the civil prison for a period of three months.”
