Court holds "PK-BOR" deceptively similar to registered "PK MOR" trademark for water soluble fertilizers; injunction restrains defendant from using impugned mark pending suit disposal.
In a significant ruling dated October 15, 2026, the Bombay High Court, presided over by Mr. Madhav J. Jamdar, J., granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Indian Agro Chem Industries Pvt. Ltd. ("Plaintiff") restraining Ampra Biobact Private Limited ("Defendant") from using the trade mark "PK-BOR" for water soluble fertilizers, holding it to be deceptively similar to Plaintiff's registered mark "PK MOR."
The Plaintiff, incorporated in 1995, is a reputed manufacturer and marketer of agrochemicals and fertilizers. It is the registered proprietor of the trade mark "PK MOR" (registered as "PKMor" under Registration No. 5367060 in Class 1) since March 11, 2022. The Plaintiff commenced use of the mark in October 2022 for its water soluble fertilizers and related goods, backed by extensive sales, promotional activities, and goodwill in the agricultural sector.
The dispute arose when the Plaintiff discovered that the Defendant was marketing an identical type of water soluble fertilizer under the mark "PK-BOR," which the Court noted differed from "PK MOR" only by a single letter and the presence of a hyphen. The Court analyzed the marks' phonetic, visual, and structural similarity and found them nearly identical, with the minor differences deemed inconsequential.
The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant's use of "PK-BOR" for identical goods was likely to cause confusion among consumers, especially farmers and agriculturalists who may be illiterate or semi-literate, thus constituting infringement and passing off under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court emphasized that the nature of the goods and the profile of the buyers are critical factors in assessing likelihood of confusion.
The Defendant contended that "PK-BOR" was derived from the chemical composition of its product (Phosphorus, Potassium, and Boron). However, the Court rejected this defense, stating that the mark must be considered as a whole from the purchaser's viewpoint and not based on the etymological explanation provided by the Defendant. The Defendant's own correspondence referring to "PK-BOR" as its "product mark" with goodwill further weakened its claim.
Despite being served twice, the Defendant failed to appear or file any reply to the Plaintiff's interim application, leaving the Plaintiff's case uncontested. Considering the strong prima facie case, the balance of convenience, and the potential for irreparable injury to the Plaintiff, the Court granted the ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendant and its associates from using the mark "PK-BOR" or any deceptively similar mark in relation to the contested goods.
The injunction will continue until the next hearing on December 10, 2026. The Court also disposed of the Leave Petition filed by the Plaintiff allowing the suit to proceed.
This judgment underscores the Bombay High Court's firm stance on protecting registered trademarks and preventing deceptive similarities that could mislead consumers, particularly in sectors involving essential agricultural inputs.
Bottom Line:
Trade mark infringement and passing off - Registered proprietor and prior user of mark "PK MOR" in respect of water soluble fertilizer made out strong prima facie case against Defendant using deceptively similar mark "PK-BOR" for identical goods - Mere substitution of one letter and insertion of hyphen held inconsequential - Considering nature of goods sold to farmers and agriculturalists, likelihood of confusion found high - Defence that impugned mark was derived from chemical composition rejected - Ad-interim injunction granted.
Statutory provision(s): Trade Marks Act, 1999
