PROCTER AND GAMBLE HYGIENE AND HEALTH CARE LIMITED vs JAY DAWANI Advocate - Pooja Jain — COMIP/175/2026
Case under Trade Marks Act Section 134. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 17th April 2026.
CNR: HCBM020272942025
e-Filing Number
26-08-2025
Filing Number
COMIP/27291/2025
Filing Date
03-09-2025
Registration No
COMIP/175/2026
Registration Date
27-04-2026
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
17th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED OFF
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
PROCTER AND GAMBLE HYGIENE AND HEALTH CARE LIMITED
Adv. Rashmi Singh
THE PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY
Adv. RASHMI SINGH
Respondent(s)
JAY DAWANI Advocate - Pooja Jain
BHISHAM LAL DAWANI
Adv. Pooja Jain
MANISH DAWANI
Adv. Pooja Jain
MAYANK DAWANI
Adv. Pooja Jain
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH
FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
DUE MATTERS - ADJOURNED OS
DUE MATTERS - ADJOURNED OS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 26-11-2025 | FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION |
| 18-03-2026 | DUE MATTERS - ADJOURNED OS |
| 15-06-2026 | DUE MATTERS - ADJOURNED OS |
Orders
The Bombay High Court's Commercial Division decreed the suit on April 17, 2026, after the parties amicably settled their dispute. The court accepted the signed Consent Terms and granted a decree in favor of Procter and Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Limited in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), (c), and (e), while discharging the Court Receiver and directing the plaintiff to pay the receiver's costs within eight days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Bombay High Court's Commercial Division decreed the suit on April 17, 2026, after the parties amicably settled their dispute. The court accepted the signed Consent Terms and granted a decree in favor of Procter and Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Limited in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), (c), and (e), while discharging the Court Receiver and directing the plaintiff to pay the receiver's costs within eight days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts