Bombay High Court Halts Aquapeya’s Operations in Trademark Dispute with Bisleri
- Snehal Khemka
- 1 day ago
- 3 min read
The Bombay High Court, in the case of Bisleri International Private Limited v. Tushar Rajesh Mundada & Anr, has issued an interim order directing Natvits Beverages Private Limited, the maker of Aquapeya, a packaged water brand that recently secured funding on Shark Tank India, to immediately cease all operations due to trademark infringement allegations by Bisleri International, one of India's leading packaged water brands. Bisleri accused Aquapeya of having a deceptively similar branding, including color schemes and design elements. The Court has now directed Aquapeya to stop manufacturing, packaging, distributing, marketing, and selling its packaged drinking water brand.
Background:
The Plaintiff, Bisleri International Pvt. Ltd., is a well-established player in the bottled water market and holds several trademarks associated with the name "Bisleri". The Company primarily operates within a Business-to-Consumer (B2C) model, directly marketing and selling its products to end-consumers through retail outlets, e-commerce platforms, and general trade.
The Defendant, Aquapeya Spring Mineral Water LLP, operates within a Business-to-Business (B2B) framework, dealing with bulk supply of packaged drinking water to hotels, commercial establishments, and institutional buyers under the name “Aquapeya”.
Bisleri filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered trademark and passing off, asserting that Aquapeya’s visual branding—including use of the green color scheme and label design—deliberately mimicked Bisleri’s identity to gain consumer traction. It further alleged that Aquapeya "infringed its registered trademark and copyright by using pirated artworks. The issue was compounded by public admissions from Aquapeya’s founders, who acknowledged adopting “popular brand colors” as well as cashing-in on the goodwill of the bigger players in the market to enhance their visibility. To that extent, Aquapeya promoters said they "used the same green colour" as Bisleri because consumers identify with it.
Arguments and Court Ruling:
The High Court found Aquapeya’s branding to be deceptively similar to that of Bisleri, constituting a violation of intellectual property rights. The court ordered a complete halt on Aquapeya’s manufacturing, packaging, marketing, and sales operations, pending further proceedings.
While evaluating the risk of consumer confusion, Courts often consider the nature of the goods, the class of purchasers, and the mode of purchase. To elaborate, Bisleri, being a B2C brand, is aimed at the general public, with retail availability and visibility in consumer marketplaces. In contrast, Aquapeya operates in a closed-loop supply chain with business clients, many of whom have procurement policies and contractual terms that negate impulsive purchasing or confusion-based transactions.
The relevant markets thus differ not only in type of buyer but also in buying behavior, awareness level, and distribution channels. These distinctions substantially mitigate the risk of confusion and suggest that the statutory violation under Sections 29(1) and 29(2) may not be established. However, in the present case, the Aquapeya founders themselves admitted to using popular brand colors to attract customers, which the Court considered evidence of bad faith and intentional infringement.
Conclusion:
While the Plaintiff’s concerns about brand protection are valid, the specific business models of the parties— particularly the B2B nature of Aquapeya, cannot overrule intent and admission of intent in mimicking a trademark. Thus, Bombay High Court’s ruling underscores that while market segmentation and consumer awareness are critical factors in trademark disputes, they cannot shield a defendant who admits to intentionally borrowing branding elements of a reputed mark. As a result, despite the absence of direct market overlap, Aquapeya has been restrained from operating— marking a strong precedent reinforcing brand protection and deterring willful infringement.