Calcutta High Court
425 cases · page 10 of 15
Showing 271–299Jasper Motors Private Limited And Another v.The Proprietor, Basantee Battery Operated Rickshaw and Others
The applicant (Defendant No.2) filed an application seeking recall of a prior injunction order, arguing that the plaintiff's patent was invalid based on grounds like prior art and lack of inventive step under Section 64 of the Patents Act. The court found prima facie satisfaction regarding the patent's invalidity and noted the defendant's manufacturing activity, leading to the recall of the interim order.
Saj Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v.Habiganj Agro Ltd. & Anr.
The Calcutta High Court upheld the interim injunction granted to Saj Food Products Pvt. Ltd. against Habiganj Agro Ltd., finding that the defendants failed to establish a compelling case for vacating the order. Despite arguments regarding 'proposed to be used' status and prior ownership claims, the court noted evidence of slavish imitation in the defendants' packaging materials. The interim injunction remains active for 16 weeks while the main suit proceeds.
Saj Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v.Habiganj Agro Ltd. & Anr.
The Calcutta High Court upheld the interim injunction granted to Saj Food Products Pvt. Ltd. against Habiganj Agro Ltd., finding that the defendants failed to establish a compelling case for vacating the order. Despite arguments regarding 'proposed to be used' status and prior ownership claims, the court noted evidence of slavish imitation in the defendants' packaging materials. The interim injunction remains active for 16 weeks while the main suit proceeds.
Hakimuddin Bhemat v.Perfect Agro
The Calcutta High Court addressed a dispute concerning alleged trademark infringement involving Hakimuddin Bhemat and Perfect Agro. The court heard submissions from various parties, including an added respondent (Respondent No. 2), who claimed they were merely acting as intermediaries based on requisitions from Defendant No. 1. To clarify the supply chain, Respondent No. 2 was directed to file an affidavit disclosing the identities of third-party suppliers. Furthermore, Respondent No. 2 provided an undertaking that they would cease using the plaintiff's trademark, while deadlines for other parties were extended.
Klassic Wheels Private Ltd v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr.
The petitioner filed an appeal challenging the cancellation of Design No. 229267, which covered a 'Wheel Rim' design. The grounds for cancellation were lack of novelty and prior publication. The court dismissed both the appeal and the application for additional evidence.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.R-3 Organics Limited
The Calcutta High Court granted an interim protective order in favor of Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) against R-3 Organics Limited. HUL alleged that the respondent was manufacturing and selling detergent powder under 'PARAS STAIN FIGHTER' with labels deceptively similar to HUL's well-known trademark 'SURF EXCEL.' The court found a prima facie case of infringement regarding both the registered trade mark and the copyright in the distinctive getup and color scheme, leading to an order for inventory and seizure of infringing goods.
Mutha Brothers & Ors v.Arjun Singh Rajguru & Ors
The Calcutta High Court addressed a suit concerning trademark infringement and passing off involving the marks 'RADIUM' and 'SPEED RADIUM'. The petitioners successfully established a strong prima facie case, demonstrating that the respondents were imitating their unique artistic get-up, color combination, and layout on packaging. Consequently, the court granted an interim order, appointing a Special Officer to inventory the infringing products while the main litigation proceeds.
Saregama Ltd v.The New Digital Media & Ors.
Saregama Ltd filed a suit alleging copyright infringement against The New Digital Media & Ors. concerning fifteen songs from various films. Saregama claimed absolute ownership of the sound recordings and underlying works based on assignment agreements predating 1994, asserting that they held the rights to digital exploitation. The court examined the validity of these pre-amendment assignments and the scope of the infringement claims. Ultimately, the interim injunction was modified: usage was restricted for three specific films, while the injunction was lifted for eight others, requiring those defendants to account for all revenue generated.
Mutha Brothers & Ors v.Arjun Singh Rajguru & Ors
The Calcutta High Court addressed a suit concerning trademark infringement and passing off involving the marks 'RADIUM' and 'SPEED RADIUM'. The petitioners successfully established a strong prima facie case, demonstrating that the respondents were imitating their unique artistic get-up, color combination, and layout on packaging. Consequently, the court granted an interim order, appointing a Special Officer to inventory the infringing products while the main litigation proceeds.
Abp News Network Private Limited & Anr v.Pobi Infrastructure Private Limited & ...
The Calcutta High Court decreed a suit filed by ABP News Network against Pobi Infrastructure, resolving the dispute through an amicable out-of-court settlement. The defendants acknowledged that the mark "Shera Bangali" is a well-known trademark of the plaintiffs and committed not to use it for their upcoming or future film ventures. This judgment underscores the importance of pre-litigation settlements in IP disputes involving brand reputation.
Rajat Agarwal & Anr. v.Quadrific Media Pvt Ltd & Anr.
This case involves a dispute over the intellectual property assets, specifically the trademark 'Spartanpoker', its logo, and the domain name 'Spartanpoker.com'. The plaintiffs filed a suit in the High Court concerning these assets, while the defendants subsequently filed a related suit (TS No. 5 of 2017) in the District Judge's court. To prevent conflicting judgments and streamline the legal process, the Calcutta High Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction to transfer the Alipore suit to be heard alongside the original High Court proceedings.
BDA Ltd. v.National Industrial Corporation Ltd.
The appellant filed an application before the Controller of Patents and Designs for cancellation of Registered Design No.182771 under Section 19 of the Act. The Registrar had previously rejected this application, and since more than ten years had passed, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the appeal as infructuous.
Philco Industries & Ors. v.The Dy. Controller Of Patents & Designs & Anr.
Philco Industries challenged the registration of a bowl design (No. 205014), arguing that it lacked novelty as it was common in trade and had been previously sold by them. The Deputy Controller rejected this cancellation petition, finding no cogent evidence of prior publication or use. The Calcutta High Court upheld the Controller's decision, agreeing that Philco failed to discharge its onus of proving prior art, thereby affirming the design registration.
T.K. Shawal Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
T.K. Shawal Industries Pvt. Ltd. challenged the registration of Design No. 252082, arguing that the scarf's surface pattern lacked originality and was anticipated by prior knowledge or publication. The court examined evidence regarding prior sales invoices and Wikipedia documents but found no cogent proof of novelty infringement. While dismissing the cancellation petition, the High Court noted an apparent clerical error in the certificate of registration date and directed the Controller to make the necessary correction.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Guddu
Hindustan Unilever Limited successfully sought interim protection against Guddu, alleging that the respondent was manufacturing and selling soaps under the brand 'New Liberty' with trade designs, graphics, and color schemes deceptively similar to Lifebuoy. The court recognized the distinctive 'trade dress' of Lifebuoy in the competitive FMCG sector. Given the high potential for consumer confusion among unwary buyers, the Calcutta High Court appointed a Special Officer to inventory the infringing goods and granted an interim injunction to preserve the petitioner's market reputation.
hindustan unilever limited v.shree mehta chemicals indore pvt ltd
Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUFL) sued Shree Mehta Chemicals (Indore) Pvt Ltd for infringement of its registered trademark 'SURF/SURF EXCEL' and copyright in the artwork on its detergent powder packaging, alleging that Shree Mehta’s ‘SANAN’ detergent packaging used a deceptively similar colour scheme, getup, and artwork. HUFL claimed significant sales and reputation associated with the SURF EXCEL brand.
Irinjalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank Ltd v.ITC Ltd & Ors.
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging passing-off and infringement, claiming that the appellant's use of the mark 'ITC' in its banking business was unfair. The court ruled that since the plaintiff had its registered office within the territorial jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court, the court possessed the necessary authority to hear the action under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Eveready Industries India Limited v.Euro-Solo Energy Systems Limited
The Calcutta High Court ruled in favor of Eveready Industries India Limited, finding that Euro-Solo Energy Systems Limited had infringed upon its intellectual property rights. The court determined that the defendant's dry-cell batteries were deceptively similar to Eveready's products, specifically noting the adoption of the exact color scheme and substantially similar trade dress. Consequently, a clear case of passing off was established, leading to a decree for the plaintiff.
J & J Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
J & J Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. appealed an order concerning the cancellation of registered designs. The core issue was whether a party could challenge the design's validity when there was a prior settlement agreement acknowledging the rights of the petitioner. The court held that between the parties, the settlement bound them, setting aside the impugned order.
J & J Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
J & J Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. appealed against an order that proceeded with the cancellation of registered designs based on prior publication, despite a previous settlement between the parties. The court held that as between the settled parties, one is bound by their acknowledgement of ownership and validity.
Saregama India Limited v.Whackedout Media Pvt. Ltd.
Saregama India Limited filed a suit alleging copyright infringement against Whackedout Media Pvt. Ltd., claiming ownership over musical and literary works and sound recordings. The core legal dispute revolved around the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court, specifically whether its territorial reach was established under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent despite the defendant challenging it based on Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act. The court ultimately dismissed the application to revoke leave, affirming that the averments in the plaint provided sufficient grounds for the court to assume jurisdiction.
Anuradha Doval v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
This appeal before the Calcutta High Court challenged the cancellation of a registered design for a 'Bottle Cap' (Design No. 222799). The private respondent argued that the shape and configuration were not new or original, citing prior published art documents, including magazine issues from 2009. The court ultimately upheld the Controller's decision, finding that the impugned design was substantially identical to existing publications and lacked novelty.
ITC Ltd v.Irinjalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank Ltd & Ors.
ITC Ltd filed a composite suit against Irinjalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank, alleging infringement and passing off due to the bank's use of 'ITC' as an abbreviation in its name. The respondents sought revocation of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, primarily arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction because no part of the cause of action arose within Calcutta. However, the High Court found that a true reading of the plaint showed the suit was maintainable and granted leave to proceed with both claims jointly.
Ajanta Pharma Ltd v.Uas Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd & Another
The Calcutta High Court ruled in favor of Ajanta Pharma Ltd in a case involving the trademark 'Sunstop' for sun-screen cream. The court found that Uas Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd had deliberately attempted to pass off its similar product as belonging to Ajanta, exploiting the plaintiff's established market reputation and substantial sales figures. Consequently, the court granted a decree restraining Defendant No. 1 from continuing this dishonest practice.
Som Distilleries And Breweries Ltd. v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
The Controller of Patents and Designs produced records regarding the application for cancellation of Design No. 223479 filed by Som Distilleries & Breweries Ltd. The court allowed both parties liberty to inspect the original records.
M/S. M. B. Exports Limited v.The Controller Of The Patents And Designs & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court addressed an application concerning the cancellation of Registered Design No. 244215, which was filed by Jagdhir Sing, Proprietor of M/s. M.B. Machinery Corporation. The court directed the respondent to produce the relevant records within two weeks and adjourned the matter.
M/S. M. B. Exports Limited v.The Controller Of The Patents And Designs & Ors.
The petitioner, M/S. M. B. Exports Limited, filed a matter before the Calcutta High Court concerning an application for cancellation of Registered Design No. 244439. The court directed the respondent to produce the relevant proceedings and adjourned the matter.
M/S. M. B. Exports Limited v.The Controller Of The Patents And Designs & Ors.
The petitioner, M/S. M. B. Exports Limited, approached the Calcutta High Court regarding an application for cancellation of Design No. 244214. The court directed the respondent (Controller) to produce all related proceedings within two weeks and adjourned the matter.
Itc Limited v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
ITC Limited challenged the registration of a cigarette pack design (No. 196859) by appealing to the Calcutta High Court, arguing that the design lacked novelty and was not registrable under the Designs Act, 2000. The petitioner contended that prior published designs rendered the registered design non-original. However, the court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding no fundamental error in the Controller's assessment of the design's originality and noting significant delays by the appellant.
Krishna Plastic Industries v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
Krishna Plastic Industries appealed against an order allowing the cancellation of its registered design for a 'plastic seal'. The High Court found that the Deputy Controller failed to properly examine and reason regarding the distinctive surface pattern, which was claimed as the source of novelty. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.