PROCTER AND GAMBLE HYGIENE AND HEALTH CARE LIMITED vs JAY DAWANI — LPETN/156/2026

Case under Copyright Act Section 62. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 17th April 2026.

CNR: HCBM020276372025

CASE DISPOSED

e-Filing Number

04-09-2025

Filing Number

LPETN/27637/2025

Filing Date

08-09-2025

Registration No

LPETN/156/2026

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

COPYRIGHT ACT Section 62
TRADE MARKS ACT Section 134

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

BHISHAM LAL DAWANI

MANISH DAWANI

MAYANK DAWANI

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH

16-10-2025

FOR CIRCULATION

17-12-2025

DUE MATTERS - ADJOURNED OS

27-01-2026

DUE MATTERS - ADJOURNED OS

Orders

17-04-2026
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH

The Bombay High Court's Commercial Division decreed the IP suit filed by Procter and Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Limited against Jay Dawani and others on 17th April 2026, following an amicable settlement between parties. The court accepted the Consent Terms signed by both parties and granted a decree in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), (c) and (e) of the plaint, with court fees to be refunded and the Court Receiver discharged. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court's Commercial Division decreed the IP suit filed by Procter and Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Limited against Jay Dawani and others on 17th April 2026, following an amicable settlement between parties. The court accepted the Consent Terms signed by both parties and granted a decree in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), (c) and (e) of the plaint, with court fees to be refunded and the Court Receiver discharged. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case