Hindustan Unilever Limited Davawala and Co vs Vive Cosmetics — HCBM20006232026
Case under Trade Marks Act. Next hearing: 08th May 2026.
CNR: HCBM020006232026
e-Filing Number
07-01-2026
Filing Number
IA/623/2026
Filing Date
08-Jan-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh
Coram
Hon'ble Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh
Bench Type
Single
Judicial Branch
Original
Last updated 28-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Hindustan Unilever Limited Davawala and Co
Respondent(s)
-
1.Vive Cosmetics
-
2.Periodic Healthcare
Case History
-
08-May-2026
Next hearingPending
-
01-Jul-2026
Due Matters - Adjourned OS
Hon'ble Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh
-
08-May-2026
Hon'ble Justice Sharmila U. DeshmukhView PDF
Case Summary: Hindustan Unilever Limited's trademark infringement suit against Vive Cosmetics was settled amicably on May 8, 2026. The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff, granting perpetual injunctions restraining defendants from using the mark "PERI-V-WASH" or any deceptively similar mark to HUL's registered "V-WASH" trademarks (Classes 3 and 5), and prohibiting manufacturing/selling hygiene products under the infringing mark. Court fees were refunded, the Court Receiver was discharged, and all related applications were disposed of. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
23-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Justice Sharmila U. DeshmukhView PDF
-
23-Apr-2026
For Circulation
Hon'ble Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh
-
24-Mar-2026
For Circulation
Hon'ble Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh
-
10-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
08-Jan-2026
Case filed
Case Summary: Hindustan Unilever Limited's trademark infringement suit against Vive Cosmetics was settled amicably on May 8, 2026. The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff, granting perpetual injunctions restraining defendants from using the mark "PERI-V-WASH" or any deceptively similar mark to HUL's registered "V-WASH" trademarks (Classes 3 and 5), and prohibiting manufacturing/selling hygiene products under the infringing mark. Court fees were refunded, the Court Receiver was discharged, and all related applications were disposed of. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts