Bombay HC Bans ‘Bislie’ Water Brand sale Over Similarity With Bisleri

The Bombay High Court has restrained a Karnataka-based packaged drinking water manufacturer from manufacturing, selling or marketing water under the brand name “Bislie”, after finding the mark prima facie deceptively similar to the well-known “Bisleri” trademark. The order also covers the company’s packaging, artwork, trade dress and bottle design, giving Bisleri International a significant interim victory in its trademark and copyright dispute.

Justice Madhav J. Jamdar passed the order in proceedings initiated by Bisleri International against Belaguli Mahalingegowda Kirankumar, proprietor of Kalabyraveshwara Mineral Water Industry in Karnataka.

The court’s intervention comes after Bisleri’s investigators allegedly discovered packaged drinking water bearing the “Bislie” name being manufactured and marketed from a facility in Channarayapattana, Karnataka, in May 2026.

Bombay HC Restrains ‘Bislie’ Water Brand

The Bombay High Court has restrained the defendant from manufacturing, distributing, printing, packaging, stocking, supplying, marketing or selling packaged drinking water under “BISLIE” or any other mark that is identical or deceptively similar to “BISLERI”.

The order extends beyond the name itself.

The manufacturer has also been restrained from using artwork, colour schemes, layouts, trade dress and bottle designs that are identical or substantially similar to those associated with Bisleri.

The court’s order remains in force pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit.

What the Court Has Barred

Area	Court’s direction
Brand name	No use of “BISLIE”
Similar trademarks	Prohibited
Packaging	Restricted
Artwork	Restricted
Trade dress	Restricted
Bottle design	Restricted
Manufacturing	Prohibited under the disputed branding
Sale and distribution	Prohibited
Marketing	Prohibited

Why ‘Bislie’ Was Considered Similar to ‘Bisleri’

A central issue was the similarity between the two brand names.

The court noted that the defendant had effectively altered the spelling of “Bisleri” to create “Bislie”. According to the court’s observations, the sixth alphabet, “r”, was removed and the positions of “e” and “i” were changed to arrive at the disputed mark.

The court found this sufficiently similar to raise a prima facie case of trademark infringement.

The similarity was not limited to the spelling.

Bisleri argued that the competing product also copied elements of its visual identity, making the overall presentation appear substantially similar.

Packaging and Trade Dress Also Came Under Scrutiny

The Bombay High Court considered the visual appearance of the products while examining Bisleri’s allegations.

According to the court record, the disputed packaging allegedly reproduced elements including the colour scheme, placement of features, get-up, layout, style and overall trade dress associated with Bisleri’s registered label and artwork.

This is significant because trademark disputes are not necessarily limited to the exact words appearing on a product.

A brand can also seek protection for distinctive visual elements that consumers associate with its products.

In this case, Bisleri argued that the combination of the name, artwork and packaging increased the possibility of consumers confusing the two products.

Bottle Design Was Also Part of the Dispute

The court’s order also covers the bottle design.

Bisleri argued that its bottle has distinctive characteristics, including a conical upper portion transitioning into a cylindrical lower section and a wave-like surface pattern running across the bottle.

The court found a prima facie similarity between the competing bottle designs.

The defendant’s bottle was described as having a similar shape, colour combination and wave-like surface pattern.

The court therefore concluded that there was a prima facie case for protection against passing off as well as trademark and copyright infringement.

Bisleri’s Longstanding Brand Reputation

Bisleri relied on its long history and substantial commercial presence to establish the strength of its brand.

Court records cited by Bisleri showed sales turnover of approximately ₹3,173.6 crore for Bisleri-branded packaged drinking water during FY2024-25, along with promotional expenditure of approximately ₹99.53 crore.

The company argued that decades of use and significant promotional investment had made the “Bisleri” name, label artwork and bottle design strongly associated with its products.

The court accepted that Bisleri had established substantial goodwill and reputation for the purposes of the interim proceedings.

How Bisleri Discovered the Alleged Infringement

Bisleri told the court that it regularly monitors the market for potential piracy of its trademarks, artwork and product designs.

During an investigation in the last week of May 2026, its investigators allegedly identified a manufacturing unit in Channarayapattana, Karnataka, producing and marketing packaged drinking water under the “Bislie” name.

The company subsequently approached the Bombay High Court seeking protection for its intellectual-property rights.

Court Receiver Was Appointed

The legal proceedings had already resulted in an earlier ex-parte ad-interim order on June 11, 2026.

Under that order, a Court Receiver was appointed with authority to search and seize goods bearing the disputed mark, along with labels, packaging material, machinery and related materials. The court record states that the order was subsequently executed.

The latest order effectively confirms the interim protection sought by Bisleri.

Defendant Did Not Appear in Court

Another factor considered by the court was the absence of the defendant.

At the August 7 hearing, the manufacturer did not appear despite having been served with the proceedings. An affidavit of service had also been filed.

As a result, the allegations and submissions made by Bisleri remained largely uncontroverted at this stage.

The court therefore found no reason to withdraw the earlier interim protection.

Trademark Protection Goes Beyond Exact Spelling

The case demonstrates why established brands often seek protection against marks that are not completely identical but are sufficiently similar to create a likelihood of confusion.

“Bislie” and “Bisleri” are not the same word.

However, trademark law can protect a brand where a competing mark is deceptively similar and could cause consumers to believe that the products have the same source or are commercially connected.

The court’s prima facie findings therefore focused on the overall similarity rather than simply comparing the number of identical letters.

Visual Similarity Strengthened Bisleri’s Case

The packaging allegations made the dispute more significant.

If two products use similar names but have completely different visual identities, consumers may be less likely to confuse them.

However, when similar names are combined with similar colours, artwork, layouts and bottle shapes, the overall impression can become considerably closer.

That was an important element in Bisleri’s case.

The court observed that the defendant had attempted to come as close as possible to Bisleri’s registered label mark and artwork.

Passing Off Also Became Relevant

The case also involves the legal concept of passing off.

Passing off generally concerns conduct that creates a misleading impression that one party’s goods or services are connected with another established business.

In this dispute, Bisleri argued that the similarities could cause consumers to associate the “Bislie” product with its established brand.

The Bombay High Court found a prima facie case for passing off in relation to the disputed bottle design and other elements.

Why the Case Matters for Consumer Brands

The ruling highlights the importance of protecting not just brand names but also the broader identity of consumer products.

For packaged goods, consumers often recognise products through a combination of:

• Brand name
• Logo
• Colour scheme
• Label design
• Bottle or package shape
• Typography
• Overall visual presentation

Companies with significant brand recognition may therefore seek legal protection for several components of their product identity.

Packaged Water Market Faces Branding Pressure

The packaged drinking water industry is highly competitive, with national brands competing alongside regional bottlers and smaller manufacturers.

Brand recognition can be particularly important because consumers often make purchasing decisions quickly at retail outlets, restaurants, hotels, airports and other locations.

A distinctive bottle and label can therefore become important commercial assets.

The Bisleri case shows that established companies are prepared to use intellectual-property litigation to protect those assets.

The Case Is Not a Final Judgment

It is important to distinguish the latest order from a final decision on the entire dispute.

The Bombay High Court has granted interim relief after finding a prima facie case.

The suit itself remains pending.

The final outcome could depend on further evidence, arguments and the defendant’s response.

Therefore, the latest ruling should be understood as an interim restraint rather than a final determination of all legal claims.

What It Means for the ‘Bislie’ Manufacturer

The immediate impact on the Karnataka manufacturer is significant.

The company cannot continue manufacturing, packaging, stocking, distributing or selling packaged drinking water under “Bislie” or a deceptively similar mark while the interim order remains in force.

It also cannot use the disputed artwork, trade dress or bottle design covered by the court’s order.

The company may need to develop a completely different brand identity and packaging if it wants to continue selling packaged water.

What It Means for Bisleri

For Bisleri, the ruling provides additional protection for one of India’s most recognisable packaged-water brands.

The company has previously pursued legal action against other businesses accused of using similar branding, demonstrating an ongoing effort to protect its intellectual property.

The latest order reinforces the importance of its registered trademarks, artwork and distinctive bottle design.

Broader Implications for Startups and Small Businesses

The case also carries a lesson for smaller consumer brands.

Using a name or visual identity that resembles an established brand can create significant legal risk even if the spelling is technically different.

Companies launching new consumer products should conduct trademark searches and evaluate packaging designs before entering the market.

A distinctive brand identity can help avoid both consumer confusion and costly legal disputes.

What Businesses Should Check Before Launching a Brand

Companies developing consumer products should consider:

1. Trademark availability — Check whether a similar name is already registered.
2. Visual identity — Avoid copying established logos, colour combinations or artwork.
3. Packaging — Ensure the overall presentation is independently developed.
4. Product shape — Check whether distinctive container or package designs are protected.
5. Market research — Assess whether consumers could reasonably confuse the products.
6. Legal review — Obtain intellectual-property advice before commercial launch.

These steps can be particularly important for products sold in crowded consumer categories.

Investors and Brand Owners Should Watch

The case is also relevant to companies whose value depends heavily on brand recognition.

Investors should pay attention to:

• Trademark disputes
• Packaging-related litigation
• Copyright claims
• Product-design protection
• Brand enforcement costs
• Regulatory compliance
• Potential product withdrawals

For consumer companies, intellectual property can represent a significant intangible asset.

Broader Industry Impact

The Bombay High Court’s order sends a strong message about the importance of distinctive branding in India’s consumer-goods market. The court’s prima facie finding was based not only on the similarity between “Bislie” and “Bisleri”, but also on alleged similarities in artwork, trade dress, packaging and bottle design.

For established brands, the ruling reinforces the value of actively monitoring the market and protecting intellectual property. For smaller manufacturers and startups, it highlights the risks of adopting branding that could be perceived as an attempt to benefit from an established company’s goodwill.

Looking Ahead

The Bombay High Court has restrained the Karnataka-based manufacturer from using “Bislie” or any deceptively similar mark for packaged drinking water, along with the disputed artwork, trade dress and bottle design. The court’s interim order follows Bisleri’s allegations that the competing product closely copied its brand identity and packaging.

The case will now continue through the broader litigation process. While the latest order is not a final judgment, it gives Bisleri significant interim protection and demonstrates the strength of its prima facie trademark, copyright and passing-off claims.

For India’s consumer-brand ecosystem, the case is another reminder that changing a few letters in a famous brand name may not be enough to avoid trademark scrutiny when the overall presentation also resembles the established product.