Bombay High Court Grants Interim Injunction Against 'SUPREMES GOLD' In Supreme Industries Trademark Suit

The order was passed on January 19, 2026, by Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh while deciding an interim application in a suit filed by Supreme Industries alleging trademark and copyright infringement, as well as passing off, by the rival manufacturer.

The Court observed that, “An average consumer would recollect only the word “SUPREME” and would be confused upon being confronted with the Defendant's mark. There is prima facie possibility of the consumers associating the Defendant's product as that of the Plaintiff by considering that the impugned mark is one of the Plaintiff's formative marks particularly considering the stylised depiction of the word “SUPREMES” by the Defendant.”

Supreme Industries told the Court that it has been using the mark “SUPREME” since 1987 as its house mark for plastic products marketed globally. The company pointed out that it holds multiple trademark registrations for “SUPREME” and its formative marks across various classes, with the earliest registration dating back to 2003. It also claimed copyright in the stylised artwork of the “SUPREME” label.

The company stated that it discovered in June 2024 that a registration had been granted in favour of rival manufacturer for the mark “SUPREMES GOLD” with an “SG” logo, in respect of identical goods. According to Supreme Industries, the disputed mark deceptively incorporates its registered trademark in its entirety and was adopted dishonestly.

Opposing the interim relief, the rival manufacturer argued that “SUPREME” is a descriptive word and cannot be monopolized. It was further submitted that she is a registered proprietor of “SUPREMES GOLD” mark and that his marks are visually and structurally distinct due to differences in colour, font and layout.

After examining the rival marks, the Court found that the essential and dominant feature of Supreme Industries' mark is the word “SUPREME” depicted in a distinctive stylized font. It found that the disputed mark “SUPREMES GOLD” incorporates the company's mark in its entirety.

“In any event, the addition of the suffix “GOLD” is immaterial as the Plaintiff's entire mark has been subsumed in the Defendant's mark. There is visual, structural and phonetic similarity between the rival marks. The addition of the alphabet “s” does not take away the phonetic similarity as there is tendency to slur over the termination and the Defendant's mark is likely to be pronounced as SUPREME instead of SUPREMES,” the Court observed.

The Court also noted that the rival manufacturer's depiction of “SUPREMES” closely mirrors the company's stylized font and that the “SG” logo is insignificant and unlikely to be noticed by an average consumer with imperfect recollection.

On the issue of the rival mark being a registered trademark, the Court held that there is no absolute bar to granting an injunction where the subsequent registration appears ex facie illegal.

The Court added, “The Defendant has bodily lifted the essential feature of the Plaintiff's registered mark and incorporated it in the Defendant's mark with the suffix “GOLD” which is immaterial. This Court is convinced that the registration secured by the Defendant is ex facie illegal. Prima facie the subsequent registration ought not to have been granted.”

The Court also accepted Supreme Industries' claim of passing off, noting its longstanding use of the mark, substantial turnover and extensive promotional expenditure. It held that the adoption of a deceptively similar mark for identical goods was likely to mislead consumers and cause damage to the company's goodwill and reputation.

Consequently, the Court allowed the interim application and restrained the rival manufacturer from using the mark “SUPREMES GOLD” or any other mark deceptively similar to “SUPREME.”

For Plaintiff: Advocates Vinod Bhagat & Siddhant Gupta instructed by U. A. Bhagat

For Defendant: Advocates Satyaprakash Sharma & Vaishali Malekar