Calcutta High Court
387 cases · page 2 of 13
Showing 31–59M/S. Anup Kumar Biswas v.M/S. S. H. Biri Factory And Anr.
M/S. Anup Kumar Biswas filed an application seeking the rectification of a Copyright Registration held by M/S. S. H. Biri Factory And Anr., alleging that the registered label was deceptively similar to their own trade name and infringed upon their rights. The petitioner claimed the registration was obtained surreptitiously without notice. Given the respondent's willingness to have the matter heard afresh after proper notice, the Court cancelled the impugned registration and remanded the case back to the Copyright Registrar for a fresh decision.
M/S. Dunlop India Limited (In Liqn.) v.Dunlop Aircraft Tyres Limited
The Calcutta High Court granted leave to M/S. Dunlop India Limited to continue its trademark rectification and cancellation proceedings against a company now in liquidation. The dispute centered on preventing the use of the 'DUNLOP' mark, including various prefixes and suffixes, for aircraft tyres by the liquidating entity. This decision allows the established market leader to pursue legal remedies to protect its brand integrity within the specialized aviation sector.
Shroff Geeta v.Asst. Controller Of Patents And Design
The appellant challenged the rejection of a patent application for 'Composition comprising human embryonic stem cells and their derivatives' based on Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970. The respondent argued that deriving these stem cells requires the destructive use of human embryos, making the invention contrary to public order or morality. The High Court upheld the rejection.
Ramji Lal Agarwal v.Sourav Agarwal
This appeal before the Calcutta High Court addressed whether a dispute arising from a family arrangement, involving the use of the trade name 'Sindharam Sanwarmal', constituted a 'Commercial Dispute'. The plaintiff argued that the matter was purely familial and not commercial. However, the court found that the reliefs sought—specifically perpetual injunctions restraining the defendant from using or permitting others to use the trademark—manifestly demonstrated an intellectual property dispute. Consequently, the High Court held that the suit must be triable exclusively by a Commercial Court under the Act of 2015.
Ramji Lal Agarwal v.Sourav Agarwal
This appeal before the Calcutta High Court addressed whether a dispute concerning the use of the trade name 'Sindharam Sanwarmal' fell under the ambit of 'Commercial Disputes' as defined by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The plaintiff argued that the matter arose from a family arrangement and was not commercial in nature. However, the court found that the reliefs sought, specifically perpetual injunctions restraining the use of the trade name, manifestly demonstrated an intellectual property dispute relating to trademarks. Consequently, the suit was held to be triable exclusively by a Commercial Court.
Ramji Lal Agarwal v.Sourav Agarwal
This appeal before the Calcutta High Court addressed whether a dispute over the use of the trade name 'Sindharam Sanwarmal' could be heard in a regular civil court or required a Commercial Court. The core issue revolved around classifying the conflict, which arose from a family arrangement concerning business goodwill, as a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court ultimately held that since the reliefs sought involved perpetual injunctions restraining the use of the trade name, the matter squarely fell within the purview of intellectual property rights and thus constituted a Commercial Suit.
PepsiCo, Inc. v.Jagdamba Foods Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
PepsiCo successfully petitioned the Calcutta High Court for the cancellation of a similar trademark, 'JAY'S,' registered by Jagdamba Foods Pvt. Ltd. The court found that the impugned mark was phonetically identical and deceptively similar to PepsiCo's well-established brand, 'LAY'S.' Given the similarity in goods (snack foods) and the petitioner's immense goodwill, the court ruled that the registration of 'JAY'S' violated the Trademarks Act and must be cancelled.
M/S. Polo / Lauren Company, L.P. v.M/S. Loren Beautifiers Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
The Calcutta High Court allowed an application for rectification filed by M/S. Polo / Lauren Company against a similar trademark, 'LOREN'. The petitioner argued that the respondent's mark was registered dishonestly and created a likelihood of confusion with their established global brand, 'RALPH LAUREN'. Crucially, the court noted that the impugned registration had long lapsed and no steps were taken by the respondent to renew it. Consequently, the court directed the removal and expunging of the expired trademark entry.
IFB Industries Limited v.Mehul Bharatbhai Vavdiya And Others
The Calcutta High Court admitted the plaint in the case of IFB Industries Limited vs Mehul Bharatbhai Vavdiya And Others. The court granted leave under relevant procedural rules, allowing the matter to proceed for scrutiny by the Department.
Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited v.Anita Anu
Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited filed a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off against Anita Anu regarding the use of 'Poly Punkaj' for plastic goods. The core dispute revolved around whether the court should dispense with mandatory pre-suit mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Although the plaintiff claimed urgency due to the defendant's alleged bad faith registration, the High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal. The judgment held that the plaintiff's prolonged delay in approaching the court demonstrated a lack of genuine urgency, leading to the revocation of leave and dismissal of the suit on procedural grounds.
Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd. v.Syed Jawed Mohsin & Another
The Calcutta High Court allowed Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd.'s application for the cancellation and rectification of the mark 'PROTIFIX'. The court found that PROTIFIX was deceptively similar to the petitioner's established trademark, PROTINEX, both visually and phonetically, leading to a high likelihood of consumer confusion in the healthcare goods market. Furthermore, the respondent failed to provide credible evidence of genuine use for the impugned mark, satisfying the grounds for cancellation under Section 47 of the Act.
Fox And Mandal And Anr v.Somabrata Mandal And Ors
This case involves an application filed by Fox And Mandal And Anr seeking to consolidate their civil suit (IP-COM/6/2025) with two other related proceedings, including a writ petition concerning trademark disputes. The core dispute revolves around rival claims over the partnership firm's mark 'Fox & Mandal'. However, the court rejected the consolidation request, finding that the current suit was stillborn and lacked sufficient material bearing to the issues in the other cases.
Base Se v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenged the Deputy Controller's order rejecting parts of the 'Pesticidal Mixture' patent application. The appellant argued that the rejection violated natural justice and misinterpreted Section 3(h) of the Act. The High Court set aside the impugned order, holding that a partial grant is untenable as it undermines the principle of unity of invention.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr.
The petitioner, Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, filed an appeal against the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs. The court addressed a preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the matter raised by the respondent Controller.
Stromag Gmbh v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trade Mark
Stromag Gmbh appealed the rejection of its patent application, 'HYDRAULICALLY ACTUATABLE DISK BRAKE AND AZIMUTH DRIVE', which was denied primarily due to a lack of inventive steps. The appellant argued that the rejection order failed to provide sufficient reasons and violated principles of natural justice. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable for lacking reasoned analysis, setting it aside and remanding the matter.
Pharmacyclics Llc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents & Designs
Pharmacyclics Llc appealed the Deputy Controller's order rejecting its divisional patent application. The rejection was based on alleged scope changes and reliance on the parent application's claims. The High Court found that the divisional application should be treated as a substantive application, not bearing on the outcome of the parent, thus setting aside the impugned order.
Cyril Bath Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs And Ors
Cyril Bath Company appealed an order that cursorily rejected its divisional application (application no. 1376/KOLNP/2013) on the ground that claim modifications were impermissible for PCT national phase applications. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable and bereft of reasoning, mandating a reasoned decision by the Controller.
Biswanath Hosiery Mills Ltd v.Micky Metals Ltd And Anr
In this trademark rectification proceeding before the Calcutta High Court, the court noted that the petitioner's advocate-on-record was absent and no representative could furnish instructions. Due to the wastage of judicial time caused by the non-appearance, the court directed Biswanath Hosiery Mills Ltd to pay costs of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondents. The matter has been adjourned for further hearing.
Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited v.Phillips 66 Company And Anr.
The Calcutta High Court addressed an application seeking the rectification and cancellation of a trademark dispute between Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited and Phillips 66 Company. The court issued interim directions, requiring both parties to file their respective Affidavits-in-Opposition within three weeks from the judgment date. This procedural step moves the matter forward in the ongoing intellectual property litigation.
Marriott Worldwide Corporation v.Sunjoy Hans And Ors.
Marriott Worldwide Corporation successfully appealed a decision by the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks that had dismissed its opposition against a deceptively similar mark. The Calcutta High Court found that the rejection was based purely on technical procedural grounds—specifically, the lack of apostille on evidence filed in the US—and not on the merits of the case. The court ruled that statutory provisions and rules governing trademarks supersede general laws like the Notaries Act, allowing for notarized affidavits from abroad to be accepted. Consequently, the original order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back for a fresh hearing.
Biswanath Hosiery Mills Ltd v.Micky Metals Ltd And Anr
The Calcutta High Court granted Biswanath Hosiery Mills Ltd liberty to file a supplementary affidavit, allowing them to introduce two key letters from the private respondent into evidence. The court also directed the petitioner to ensure proper representation for the Registrar of Trademark (Respondent No. 2). This interim order keeps the trademark dispute active and sets the matter for further hearing on August 29, 2025.
Google Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Google LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 2705/KOLNP/2014), which claimed a method for labeling visited locations based on contact information. The Controller rejected it under Section 3(k) as being an algorithm or computer program per se. The High Court upheld the rejection, finding that the invention was directed to an abstract idea and lacked sufficient technical advancement.
Triumph Designs Limited v.Tube Investments Of India And Anr
The Calcutta High Court addressed an application filed under Section 47 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation of a mark based on non-use. While the core issue remains pending, the court granted a short adjournment to allow for the appearance of counsel from Chennai. The respondent was directed to pay costs before the next hearing date.
East India Pharmaceutical Works Limited v.Anil Keshrwani And Ors
The Calcutta High Court admitted the plaint filed by East India Pharmaceutical Works Limited against Anil Keshrwani and Ors. The court granted necessary procedural leaves, including exemption from pre-institution mediation.
Quality Tools Srl v.The Controller General of Patents And Designs and Anr
The appellant, Quality Tools Srl, appealed against an order rejecting its Patent Application (3902/NP/2010) due to a perceived lack of inventive steps. The court found that the rejection order was devoid of proper reasoning and failed to apply sufficient judicial mind. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
ITC Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
ITC Ltd challenged an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents rejecting its application for 'METHOD OF PRODUCING AEROSOL GENERATING SUBSTRATE'. The core contention was that the rejection, based on non-patentability and lack of inventive step, violated the principles of natural justice. The appellant argued that the Controller relied on technical materials not furnished to them at any prior stage or during the hearing. Recognizing this serious procedural infirmity, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Elite Gold Ltd v.The Asst Registrar Of Trade
The Calcutta High Court overturned an earlier decision that had expunged seven registered trademarks of 'KOPIKO' due to alleged lack of evidence of use. The appellant, Elite Gold Ltd, argued that they were a well-known international proprietor using their products through distributors. Recognizing the need for further evidence, the court set aside the rectification order and remanded the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing, allowing the appellant to adduce additional documents.
Otsuka Pharmaceuticals Co.Ltd. v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr.
Otsuka Pharmaceuticals appealed a decision by the Deputy Controller of Patents which rejected its application for a patent related to aripiprazole microspheres. The core contention raised by Otsuka was that the rejection order lacked any reasoned justification, failing to discuss the invention or adequately address prior art documents (D1, D2, D3). The Calcutta High Court agreed with this assessment, finding the impugned order unreasoned and unsustainable.
Oramed Ltd. v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Oramed Ltd. appealed against an order refusing patent grant for its oral insulin composition. The appeal contended that the Deputy Controller made arbitrary omissions of prior art documents and ignored crucial technical data and expert testimony when assessing inventive steps under Section 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Goodfaith Holding Private Limited v.M/S Supreme Wood Products Private Limited
The appeal challenges a previous judgment where the defendant's application for revocation of leave granted to the plaintiff under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent was allowed, leading to the dismissal of the suit. The respondent questioned the maintainability of this appeal.
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.