Hindustan Unilever Limited Davawala and Co vs Vive Cosmetics — LPETN/17/2026

Case under Trade Marks Act Section 1. Disposed: --DISPOSED OFF on 08th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020006672026

e-Filing Number

07-01-2026

Filing Number

LPETN/667/2026

Filing Date

08-Jan-2026

Registration No

LPETN/17/2026

Registration Date

12-Jan-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh

Coram

Hon'ble Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh

Bench Type

Single

Category

MERCANTILE LAWS COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS , BANKS ( 28 )

Sub-Category

TRADE MARKS ( 20 )

Judicial Branch

Original

Decision Date

08-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 19-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Trade Marks Act Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Hindustan Unilever Limited Davawala and Co

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Vive Cosmetics

  2. 2.Periodic Healthcare

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-May-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Sharmila U. DeshmukhView PDF

    Case Summary: LPETN /17/2026 The Bombay High Court granted a decree in favor of Hindustan Unilever Limited on May 8, 2026, following an amicable settlement with Vive Cosmetics and Periodic Healthcare. The court issued perpetual injunctions restraining the defendants from infringing HUL's registered V-WASH trademarks (in classes 3 and 5) by manufacturing, marketing, or selling products under the confusingly similar mark "PERI-V-WASH," which constitutes trademark infringement and passing off. The court also discharged the court receiver and ordered the plaintiff to pay receiver costs within 8 days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. LPETN/17/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: LPETN /17/2026 The Bombay High Court granted a decree in favor of Hindustan Unilever Limited on May 8, 2026, following an amicable settlement with Vive Cosmetics and Periodic Healthcare. The court issued perpetual injunctions restraining the defendants from infringing HUL's registered V-WASH trademarks (in classes 3 and 5) by manufacturing, marketing, or selling products under the confusingly similar mark "PERI-V-WASH," which constitutes trademark infringement and passing off. The court also discharged the court receiver and ordered the plaintiff to pay receiver costs within 8 days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case