{"id":25606,"date":"2026-06-10T11:42:40","date_gmt":"2026-06-10T11:42:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=25606"},"modified":"2026-06-10T11:48:23","modified_gmt":"2026-06-10T11:48:23","slug":"bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Trademark Infringement and Continuous Cause of Action: Bengal Waterproof Vs Bombay Waterproof [DUCK BACK] Judgement by Supreme Court of India"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 id=\"h-introduction\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Imagine you have built a product over decades, made it a household name, and then someone starts selling a near-identical product with a name so similar that ordinary customers cannot tell the difference.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_84 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/#Key_Legal_Issues_Before_the_Supreme_Court\" >Key Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/#Importance_of_the_Judgment\" >Importance of the Judgment<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/#Factual_and_Procedural_Background\" >Factual and Procedural Background<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/#Adoption_of_%E2%80%98DACK_BACK_Mark_by_Defendants\" >Adoption of &#8216;DACK BACK&#8217; Mark by Defendants<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/#First_Suit_Filed_by_Bengal_Waterproof_Limited\" >First Suit Filed by Bengal Waterproof Limited<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/#Events_After_Dismissal_of_First_Suit\" >Events After Dismissal of First Suit<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/#Second_Suit_and_Continuing_Cause_of_Action\" >Second Suit and Continuing Cause of Action<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/#Procedural_Objection_Raised_by_Defendants\" >Procedural Objection Raised by Defendants<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/#Litigation_Timeline\" >Litigation Timeline<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/#The_Dispute\" >The Dispute<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/#Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Court\" >Reasoning and Analysis of the Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/#Understanding_Order_2_Rule_2_Sub-rule_3_CPC\" >Understanding Order 2 Rule 2 Sub-rule (3) CPC<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/#Key_Elements_of_Order_2_Rule_2_CPC\" >Key Elements of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/#The_Procedural_Bar_Failure_to_Produce_Pleadings_of_the_Earlier_Suit\" >The Procedural Bar: Failure to Produce Pleadings of the Earlier Suit<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/#Merits_The_Continuing_Cause_of_Action\" >Merits: The Continuing Cause of Action<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/#The_Landlord-Rent_Analogy\" >The Landlord-Rent Analogy<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-18\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/#Application_of_Section_22_of_the_Limitation_Act_1963\" >Application of Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-19\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/#Rejection_of_the_Permanent_Licence_Argument\" >Rejection of the Permanent Licence Argument<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-20\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/#Final_Decision_of_the_Court\" >Final Decision of the Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-21\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/#Points_of_Law_Settled_in_This_Case\" >Points of Law Settled in This Case<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-22\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">That, in essence, is the story behind the landmark Supreme Court judgement in <strong>M\/s. Bengal Waterproof Limited v. M\/s. Bombay Waterproof Manufacturing Company and Another<\/strong> (Civil Appeal No. 14610 of 1996, decided on 18th November 1996).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This case is a vital milestone in Indian trademark law, not only because it vindicated the rights of a genuine trademark holder, but also because it clarified two important legal questions that had been causing confusion in courts across India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-key-legal-issues-before-the-supreme-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Legal_Issues_Before_the_Supreme_Court\"><\/span>Key Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Whether a procedural rule under the <strong>Code of Civil Procedure, 1908<\/strong>, specifically <strong>Order 2 Rule 2 Sub-rule (3)<\/strong>, could be used to shut out a trademark infringement suit simply because an earlier suit on a similar dispute had failed.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether repeated and continuing acts of trademark infringement give rise to a fresh cause of action each time they occur, or whether the entire matter becomes closed once a court decides the first case.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-importance-of-the-judgment\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Importance_of_the_Judgment\"><\/span>Importance of the Judgment<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court answered both questions decisively and in favour of the trademark owner, restoring justice that had been denied at two earlier stages of litigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Issue<\/th><th>Question Before the Court<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Order 2 Rule 2 CPC<\/td><td>Can a subsequent trade mark infringement suit be barred because an earlier related suit had failed?<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Continuing Infringement<\/td><td>Does each fresh act of infringement create a new cause of action?<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The judgement remains an important authority in Indian intellectual property law because it reinforces the principle that continuing violations of trade mark rights can generate fresh causes of action and that procedural technicalities should not be allowed to defeat substantive justice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-factual-and-procedural-background\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_and_Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Factual and Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">M\/s. Bengal Waterproof Limited, the appellant before the Supreme Court, was the registered owner of the trade mark <strong>&#8216;DUCK BACK&#8217;<\/strong>. This mark had been registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, and the company also held copyright registration No. A-4548\/69 dated 19th July 1969 for the artistic design of the word &#8216;Duck Back&#8217;. The company had built a strong reputation over many years in the Indian market for waterproof goods, particularly rubberised waterproof raincoats, which were well-known to consumers as &#8216;Duck Back&#8217; raincoats.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-adoption-of-dack-back-mark-by-defendants\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Adoption_of_%E2%80%98DACK_BACK_Mark_by_Defendants\"><\/span>Adoption of &#8216;DACK BACK&#8217; Mark by Defendants<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">At some point, M\/s Bombay Waterproof Manufacturing Company and another entity began manufacturing and marketing waterproof goods, particularly waterproof raincoats, under the trademark <strong>&#8216;DACK BACK&#8217;<\/strong>. The plaintiff company came to know that this mark was phonetically and visually so similar to their registered mark &#8216;DUCK BACK&#8217; that ordinary consumers were being confused into thinking they were buying the plaintiff&#8217;s product when they were actually purchasing the defendants&#8217; goods. This practice of selling one&#8217;s goods under a name or mark so similar to another&#8217;s that customers are misled is legally known as <strong>&#8216;passing off&#8217;<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-first-suit-filed-by-bengal-waterproof-limited\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"First_Suit_Filed_by_Bengal_Waterproof_Limited\"><\/span>First Suit Filed by Bengal Waterproof Limited<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Faced with this situation, Bengal Waterproof Limited filed its first suit, <strong>Original Suit No. 238 of 1980<\/strong>, before the Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The learned trial judge dismissed this first suit on 9th April 1982 on the ground that there was no infringement of the plaintiff&#8217;s trademark &#8216;DUCK BACK&#8217; by the defendants&#8217; use of &#8216;DACK BACK&#8217;, and therefore the reliefs sought were not maintainable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-events-after-dismissal-of-first-suit\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Events_After_Dismissal_of_First_Suit\"><\/span>Events After Dismissal of First Suit<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The plaintiff took the view that it had been misinformed and ill-advised when it instituted the first suit in the form that it did. Importantly, even after the dismissal of the first suit, the defendants continued selling goods under the name &#8216;DACKBACK&#8217;.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The plaintiff, accordingly, issued legal notices, namely:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Two letters dated 30th April 1982 calling upon the defendants to stop marketing or selling goods under that mark.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The defendants, by two letters dated 25th May 1982, refused to comply and set up a defence of res judicata.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-second-suit-and-continuing-cause-of-action\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Second_Suit_and_Continuing_Cause_of_Action\"><\/span>Second Suit and Continuing Cause of Action<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Undeterred, Bengal Waterproof Limited filed a second suit, <strong>Original Suit No. 123 of 1982<\/strong>, before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, praying for permanent injunctions, delivery up of infringing material, inquiry into damages, and costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The plaint specifically averred the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The cause of action had arisen on or about 6th April 1982.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>It was a continuing cause of action.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The cause of action arose every day within the jurisdiction of the Hyderabad Court.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-procedural-objection-raised-by-defendants\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Objection_Raised_by_Defendants\"><\/span>Procedural Objection Raised by Defendants<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The defendants raised the bar of <strong>Order 2 Rule 2 Sub-rule (3) CPC<\/strong>. The trial court dismissed the second suit on this ground.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Andhra Pradesh High Court in <strong>CCA No. 112 of 1987<\/strong>, while holding on merits that &#8216;DACK BACK&#8217; was phonetically and visually similar to &#8216;DUCK BACK&#8217; and amounted to passing off, nevertheless confirmed the dismissal on the procedural bar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Bengal Waterproof Limited then filed a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Leave was granted, and the matter was heard as <strong>Civil Appeal No. 14610 of 1996<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-litigation-timeline\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Litigation_Timeline\"><\/span>Litigation Timeline<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Event<\/th><th>Details<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Trade Mark Ownership<\/td><td>&#8216;DUCK BACK&#8217; registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Copyright Registration<\/td><td>No. A-4548\/69 dated 19th July 1969<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>First Suit<\/td><td>Original Suit No. 238 of 1980<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>First Suit Dismissed<\/td><td>9th April 1982<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Legal Notices Issued<\/td><td>30th April 1982<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Defendants&#8217; Reply<\/td><td>25th May 1982<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Second Suit<\/td><td>Original Suit No. 123 of 1982<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>High Court Appeal<\/td><td>CCA No. 112 of 1987<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Supreme Court Appeal<\/td><td>Civil Appeal No. 14610 of 1996<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-the-dispute\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_Dispute\"><\/span>The Dispute<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The dispute before the Supreme Court was essentially a narrow but crucial one. Since the High Court had already decided the merits in the plaintiff&#8217;s favour, and since there were no cross-objections or cross-petitions by the defendants, the only question that remained was whether the second suit was barred by <strong>Order 2 Rule 2 Sub-rule (3) CPC<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The defendants&#8217; counsel fairly conceded before the Supreme Court that if the Court were to hold that the suit were not so barred, the plaintiff&#8217;s suit would have to be decreed. The entire weight of the litigation thus came down to this single procedural question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-reasoning-and-analysis-of-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Reasoning and Analysis of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-understanding-order-2-rule-2-sub-rule-3-cpc\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Understanding_Order_2_Rule_2_Sub-rule_3_CPC\"><\/span>Understanding Order 2 Rule 2 Sub-rule (3) CPC<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court set out the text of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In plain terms, this rule requires that when a person goes to court based on a particular cause of action, he must include all claims and seek all reliefs arising from that cause of action in that single suit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">If he omits any relief without obtaining the court&#8217;s leave, he cannot later file a fresh suit for that omitted relief.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The critical foundation of this rule is that both suits must be based on the <strong>same cause of action<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-key-elements-of-order-2-rule-2-cpc\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Elements_of_Order_2_Rule_2_CPC\"><\/span>Key Elements of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>A plaintiff must include all claims arising from the same cause of action in one suit.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>All available reliefs based on that cause of action should ordinarily be claimed together.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>If a relief is omitted without the court&#8217;s permission, a later suit for that omitted relief may be barred.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The rule applies only when both proceedings arise from the same cause of action.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The existence or absence of a fresh or continuing cause of action becomes crucial in determining the bar.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-the-procedural-bar-failure-to-produce-pleadings-of-the-earlier-suit\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_Procedural_Bar_Failure_to_Produce_Pleadings_of_the_Earlier_Suit\"><\/span>The Procedural Bar: Failure to Produce Pleadings of the Earlier Suit<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court first identified a fundamental procedural failure on the defendants&#8217; part. To invoke this bar successfully, a defendant must produce the plaint of the earlier suit before the trial court so that the court can compare the two plaints and verify that the cause of action is identical.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court referred to the authoritative ruling of a Constitution Bench in <strong>Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal (1964) 7 SCR 831<\/strong>, where Justice Ayyangar, speaking for the Constitution Bench, held that for a plea under Order 2 Rule 2(3) CPC to succeed, the defendant must establish the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>That the second suit is in respect of the same cause of action as the first.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>That in respect of that cause of action the plaintiff was entitled to more than one relief.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>That the plaintiff had, without the Court&#8217;s leave, omitted to sue for the relief now being claimed.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Constitution Bench ruled emphatically that this plea is a technical bar, must be established satisfactorily, and can only be established by filing the earlier plaint as evidence before the trial court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The defendants had entirely failed to produce the plaint of the first suit (Original Suit No. 238 of 1980) before the trial court. In the absence of those pleadings, the plea was simply not maintainable. The attempt to produce the earlier plaint for the first time with the counter-affidavit in the Special Leave Petition was firmly rejected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">As the Court observed, the defendants had <em>&#8220;missed the bus&#8221;<\/em>, having failed to produce the pleadings before the Trial Court and having made no attempt to do so before the High Court either.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-merits-the-continuing-cause-of-action\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Merits_The_Continuing_Cause_of_Action\"><\/span>Merits: The Continuing Cause of Action<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court further held, on merits, that even if the procedural bar were overlooked, the second suit was not based on the same cause of action as the first.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The first suit of 1980 covered acts of infringement and passing off up to the date of that suit. The second suit of 1982 was based on fresh, continuing acts of infringement after the dismissal of the first suit\u2014acts that were ongoing right through the time of hearing before the Supreme Court, as the defendants&#8217; own counsel admitted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-the-landlord-rent-analogy\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_Landlord-Rent_Analogy\"><\/span>The Landlord-Rent Analogy<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court invoked the analogy of a landlord suing for rent. Just as a landlord can sue for rent accruing after the first suit, even if an earlier suit concerning earlier rent has been dismissed, a trade mark proprietor can sue for fresh infringement occurring after the first suit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-application-of-section-22-of-the-limitation-act-1963\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Application_of_Section_22_of_the_Limitation_Act_1963\"><\/span>Application of Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court also applied Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides that in the case of a continuing tort, a fresh period of limitation begins at every moment the tort continues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">An act of passing off is a continuing tort\u2014an act of deceit in the law of torts. Every fresh sale under the infringing mark is a fresh act of deceit, generating a fresh cause of action. Similarly, infringement of a registered trade mark is a continuing wrong for as long as the infringement persists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-rejection-of-the-permanent-licence-argument\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Rejection_of_the_Permanent_Licence_Argument\"><\/span>Rejection of the Permanent Licence Argument<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court pointedly rejected the argument that an infringer could gain a permanent licence to continue infringing simply because the trademark owner had once, due to poor legal advice, failed to claim all appropriate reliefs in an earlier suit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court held that such a result would be manifestly unjust and would defeat the very purpose of trademark protection under the law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-final-decision-of-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Final Decision of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. It set aside the judgements of the Trial Court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Original Suit No. 123 of 1982, filed by Bengal Waterproof Limited, was decreed as prayed for, with costs throughout all stages of the litigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-points-of-law-settled-in-this-case\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Points_of_Law_Settled_in_This_Case\"><\/span>Points of Law Settled in This Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Legal Issue<\/th><th>Principle Settled by the Supreme Court<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Order 2 Rule 2(3) CPC<\/td><td>A plea under Order 2 Rule 2(3) CPC must be established by producing the pleadings of the earlier suit before the Trial Court.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal<\/td><td>The Constitution Bench ruling in Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal [(1964) 7 SCR 831] was reaffirmed.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Trade Mark Infringement<\/td><td>Infringement of a registered trade mark is a continuing wrong.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Section 22, Limitation Act, 1963<\/td><td>A fresh cause of action arises at every moment the infringement continues.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Passing Off<\/td><td>Passing off is a continuing tort and each fresh act of passing off gives rise to a fresh cause of action.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Recurring Causes of Action<\/td><td>Order 2 Rule 2 Sub-rule (3) CPC cannot be invoked in cases involving continuing or recurring causes of action.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Similarity of Marks<\/td><td>A phonetically and visually similar mark constitutes actionable trade mark infringement and passing off.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-case-details\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Case Title<\/th><td>Bengal Waterproof Limited Vs Bombay Waterproof Manufacturing Company and Another<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Date of Order<\/th><td>18th November 1996<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Case Number<\/th><td>Civil Appeal No. 14610 of 1996<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Citation<\/th><td>(1997) 1 SCC 99<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Name of Court<\/th><td>Supreme Court of India<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Honourable Judges<\/th><td>Dr A.S. Anand and S.B. Majmudar, JJ.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-yoast-seo-related-links yoast-seo-related-links\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-indirect-protection-section-482-crpc\/\">Limits on High Court Powers in FIR-Quashing \u2014 Practical Solutions Inc. v. State of Telangana<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-law-explained-a-guide-to-protecting-brand-rights\/\">Trademark law explained: A Guide to Protecting Brand Rights<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-trademarks-act-1999-essential-provisions-and-comprehensive-overview\/\">The Trademarks Act, 1999: Essential Provisions and Comprehensive Overview<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/3-years-before-the-bench-reform-or-roadblock-for-indias-future-judges\/\">3 Years Before the Bench: Reform or Roadblock for India\u2019s Future Judges?<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/right-to-education-act-minority-institutions-supreme-court-2\/\">What is the RTE Act in Education? Understanding the Supreme Court&#8217;s Stand on Minority School Exemptions<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction Imagine you have built a product over decades, made it a household name, and then someone starts selling a near-identical product with a name so similar that ordinary customers cannot tell the difference. That, in essence, is the story behind the landmark Supreme Court judgement in M\/s. Bengal Waterproof Limited v. M\/s. Bombay Waterproof<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":25605,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[5149],"class_list":["post-25606","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-intellectual-property","tag-intellectual-property"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.7 (Yoast SEO v27.7) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Trademark Infringement and Continuous Cause of Action: Bengal Waterproof Vs Bombay Waterproof [DUCK BACK] Judgement by Supreme Court of India - Legal Service India - Articles<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court ruling on trademark infringement, passing off, continuing cause of action and Order 2 Rule 2 CPC in Bengal Waterproof case.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Trademark Infringement and Continuous Cause of Action: Bengal Waterproof Vs Bombay Waterproof [DUCK BACK] Judgement by Supreme Court of India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court ruling on trademark infringement, passing off, continuing cause of action and Order 2 Rule 2 CPC in Bengal Waterproof case.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Legal Service India - Articles\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-06-10T11:42:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-06-10T11:48:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Capture-5.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"763\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"471\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305\"},\"headline\":\"Trademark Infringement and Continuous Cause of Action: Bengal Waterproof Vs Bombay Waterproof [DUCK BACK] Judgement by Supreme Court of India\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-10T11:42:40+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-06-10T11:48:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2077,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/Capture-5.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Intellectual Property\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Intellectual Property\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\\\/\",\"name\":\"Trademark Infringement and Continuous Cause of Action: Bengal Waterproof Vs Bombay Waterproof [DUCK BACK] Judgement by Supreme Court of India - Legal Service India - Articles\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/Capture-5.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-10T11:42:40+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-06-10T11:48:23+00:00\",\"description\":\"Supreme Court ruling on trademark infringement, passing off, continuing cause of action and Order 2 Rule 2 CPC in Bengal Waterproof case.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/Capture-5.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/Capture-5.jpg\",\"width\":763,\"height\":471,\"caption\":\"Bengal Waterproof Limited v Bombay Waterproof Manufacturing Company\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Intellectual Property > Trademark Infringement and Continuous Cause of Action: Bengal Waterproof Vs Bombay Waterproof [DUCK BACK] Judgement by Supreme Court of India\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India - Law Articles\",\"description\":\"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"width\":105,\"height\":95,\"caption\":\"Legal Service India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/legalservicesind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legalserviceind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.youtube.com\\\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305\",\"name\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"url\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"contentUrl\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"caption\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\"},\"description\":\"Professional and Literary Profile Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate, is an alumnus of the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, with over 20 years of experience in IP litigation before the Delhi High Court. He currently serves as a Patent and Trademark Attorney at United &amp; United, a leading intellectual property law firm. Deeply committed to legal scholarship, he has authored more than 900 articles on intellectual property law, published on major platforms including Legal Service India, Bar &amp; Bench, Live Law, SCC Online Blog, Legal Desire, SpicyIP, among others. Beyond his legal practice, he is also an accomplished writer and poet, with over 1,500 literary works and more than 20 books published in Hindi and English. His journey reflects a unique blend of legal advocacy and creative expression, inspired by a passion for justice, knowledge, and reform.\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/author\\\/ajayamitabhsuman\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Trademark Infringement and Continuous Cause of Action: Bengal Waterproof Vs Bombay Waterproof [DUCK BACK] Judgement by Supreme Court of India - Legal Service India - Articles","description":"Supreme Court ruling on trademark infringement, passing off, continuing cause of action and Order 2 Rule 2 CPC in Bengal Waterproof case.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Trademark Infringement and Continuous Cause of Action: Bengal Waterproof Vs Bombay Waterproof [DUCK BACK] Judgement by Supreme Court of India","og_description":"Supreme Court ruling on trademark infringement, passing off, continuing cause of action and Order 2 Rule 2 CPC in Bengal Waterproof case.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/","og_site_name":"Legal Service India - Articles","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","article_published_time":"2026-06-10T11:42:40+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-06-10T11:48:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":763,"height":471,"url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Capture-5.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legalserviceind","twitter_site":"@legalserviceind","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/"},"author":{"name":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305"},"headline":"Trademark Infringement and Continuous Cause of Action: Bengal Waterproof Vs Bombay Waterproof [DUCK BACK] Judgement by Supreme Court of India","datePublished":"2026-06-10T11:42:40+00:00","dateModified":"2026-06-10T11:48:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/"},"wordCount":2077,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Capture-5.jpg","keywords":["Intellectual Property"],"articleSection":["Intellectual Property"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/","name":"Trademark Infringement and Continuous Cause of Action: Bengal Waterproof Vs Bombay Waterproof [DUCK BACK] Judgement by Supreme Court of India - Legal Service India - Articles","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Capture-5.jpg","datePublished":"2026-06-10T11:42:40+00:00","dateModified":"2026-06-10T11:48:23+00:00","description":"Supreme Court ruling on trademark infringement, passing off, continuing cause of action and Order 2 Rule 2 CPC in Bengal Waterproof case.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Capture-5.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Capture-5.jpg","width":763,"height":471,"caption":"Bengal Waterproof Limited v Bombay Waterproof Manufacturing Company"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bengal-waterproof-vs-bombay-waterproof-trademark-infringement-passing-off-supreme-court\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Intellectual Property > Trademark Infringement and Continuous Cause of Action: Bengal Waterproof Vs Bombay Waterproof [DUCK BACK] Judgement by Supreme Court of India"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","name":"Legal Service India - Law Articles","description":"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization","name":"Legal Service India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","width":105,"height":95,"caption":"Legal Service India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","https:\/\/x.com\/legalserviceind","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305","name":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","url":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","contentUrl":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","caption":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN"},"description":"Professional and Literary Profile Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate, is an alumnus of the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, with over 20 years of experience in IP litigation before the Delhi High Court. He currently serves as a Patent and Trademark Attorney at United &amp; United, a leading intellectual property law firm. Deeply committed to legal scholarship, he has authored more than 900 articles on intellectual property law, published on major platforms including Legal Service India, Bar &amp; Bench, Live Law, SCC Online Blog, Legal Desire, SpicyIP, among others. Beyond his legal practice, he is also an accomplished writer and poet, with over 1,500 literary works and more than 20 books published in Hindi and English. His journey reflects a unique blend of legal advocacy and creative expression, inspired by a passion for justice, knowledge, and reform.","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/author\/ajayamitabhsuman\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Capture-5.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25606","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25606"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25606\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":25866,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25606\/revisions\/25866"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/25605"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25606"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25606"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25606"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}