Bisleri International Private Limited vs Uday Thakur — COMIP/173/2026

Case under Trade Marks Act Section 27(2),29(1)and(2). Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 15th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020212582025

e-Filing Number

11-07-2025

Filing Number

COMIP/21256/2025

Filing Date

14-Jul-2025

Registration No

COMIP/173/2026

Registration Date

27-Apr-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

15-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 25-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Trade Marks Act Section 27(2),29(1)and(2)
Copyright Act Section 51

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Bisleri International Private Limited

    Adv. Vinod Bhagat

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Uday Thakur

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Sharmila U. DeshmukhView PDF

    The Bombay High Court decreed the Commercial IP Suit filed by Bisleri International Private Limited against Uday Thakur in full, as the parties settled the dispute through agreed consent terms signed by both parties. The court accepted the defendant's admission and statements in the consent terms as an undertaking, granted prayer clauses (a)-(e) of the plaint, and ordered the plaintiff to pay the Court Receiver's costs within eight days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-Apr-2026

    At 3.00 P.M.

    Hon'ble Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh

  4. 14-Jul-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. COMIP/173/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court decreed the Commercial IP Suit filed by Bisleri International Private Limited against Uday Thakur in full, as the parties settled the dispute through agreed consent terms signed by both parties. The court accepted the defendant's admission and statements in the consent terms as an undertaking, granted prayer clauses (a)-(e) of the plaint, and ordered the plaintiff to pay the Court Receiver's costs within eight 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