Calcutta High Court
387 cases · page 9 of 13
Showing 241–269Saregama 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.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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Atul Narsibhai Patel v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
The petitioner appealed against the cancellation of Design No. 211639 (a seal for packaging). The Assistant Controller cancelled the registration finding that the design was not new or original because its features were strikingly similar to prior published and registered designs, specifically nos. 179570 and 205871.
Atul Narsibhai Patel v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents & Designs & Ors.
The petitioner appealed against the cancellation of his registered seal design (Design No. 200628). The dispute centered on whether the design lacked novelty or originality due to its similarity to features depicted in an earlier tender document published by the Gujarat Electricity Board. The High Court upheld the Assistant Controller's decision, finding that the prior publication defeated the right of registration.
ITC Ltd. v.Irinjalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank Ltd. & Ors.
The court addressed a matter involving ITC Ltd. and Irinjalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank Ltd., where the defendant applied for the revocation of leave granted under clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The court noted that the defendants' application was crucial, especially regarding whether the plaintiff could take advantage under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Reckitt Benckiser Australia Pty. Ltd. v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
The appeal challenged the Controller's order dated March 28, 2008, which cancelled three design registrations (184135, 184136, and 184137) belonging to Reckitt Benckiser. The appellant argued that the cancellation proceedings were flawed due to denial of cross-examination. However, the High Court dismissed the appeals, finding no violation of natural justice and upholding the Controller's decision.
Yash Plastomet Pvt. Ltd. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents & Designs & Anr.
Yash Plastomet Pvt. Ltd. appealed the dismissal of its application to cancel Design No. 187706 (a 'Container'). The appellant argued that the design was not new because it had been previously published in October 1997 and registered earlier. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Controller's order, finding no sufficient evidence of prior publication or novelty.
Yash Plastomet Pvt. Ltd. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents & Designs & Anr.
The appellant challenged the registration of Design No. 180660 ('Container Lid'), arguing that it was neither new nor original, having been previously registered (Design Nos. 177677 and 177678) and prior published in 1997. The respondent argued that Design No. 180660 possessed distinct features making it novel compared to the earlier designs. The High Court upheld the lower authority's finding, concluding that Design 180660 was new and original.
Shomenath Roy Chowdhury v.Eskag Pharma Private Limited
This case involves a dispute over a patent held by Shomenath Roy Chowdhury for a therapeutic composition used in wound healing, marketed as 'Dresin'. The petitioner alleged that Eskag Pharma Private Limited was manufacturing and marketing a similar product under the name 'Sufrate TP', constituting infringement. While the petitioner sought an immediate injunction, the court recognized the need to hear the defense, which primarily argued that the ingredients were well-known in the medicinal field. Consequently, instead of granting an outright ban, the Court appointed a Special Officer to inventory the respondent's stock.
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.