Plaintiff Favorable
117 plaintiff favorable decisions from Calcutta High Court.
Plaintiff Favorable Decisions
117 cases | Page 3 of 4
Cambridge Enterprises Ltd. v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs And Anr
The appellant challenged an order from the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs that refused Patent No. 2216/KOLNP/2009, claiming it was filed beyond the statutory time limit. The court examined the filing records and found that the application was correctly filed on June 5, 2009, within the stipulated deadline.
Ust Global (Singapore) Pte Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr.
Ust Global appealed the rejection of its application for registering a design titled "Touch Screen," which was a Graphical User Interface (GUI). The Controller rejected it, arguing that GUI is incapable of design registration because it is software-based and only visible when the product is operating. The High Court set aside this order, finding that GUI qualifies as an industrial process applied to an article and is registrable.
Groz-Beckert Kg v.Union Of India & Ors.
Groz-Beckert Kg appealed an order from the Assistant Controller rejecting its patent application for a method and apparatus related to processing tape-shaped material. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step, citing prior art (D4).
ITC Limited v.Khayrul Bashar And Anr.
The Calcutta High Court allowed ITC Limited's application for rectification against the trademark 'NEEMYLE'. The court found that the registration was obtained wrongfully because the Registrar failed to conduct a proper and adequate search of earlier, similar marks. Given the prior extensive use and established goodwill of ITC's mark 'NIMYLE', the continuance of the impugned mark was deemed contrary to public interest, leading to its cancellation.
Hakimuddin Bhemat v.Mahaveer Prasad Agarwal And Anr.
The Calcutta High Court granted an interim injunction protecting the petitioner's intellectual property rights related to fertiliser sprayers. The court found that the respondents were using a virtually identical packaging and trade dress, including the word 'Bharat Shakti,' which amounted to deceiving the public. Consequently, the respondents were restrained from making such imitations, and a Receiver was appointed to inventory the infringing products.
Grand Tobacco Private Limited v.Abdul Rashid Shaikh Tobaco, A Limited Liability Partnership & Ors.
The plaintiff, Grand Tobacco Private Limited, filed an application seeking interim protection against the defendant for infringement of its registered trademark and passing off. The court found a prima facie case existed, noting that the defendant was using a deceptively similar mark ('A.R.S Chand Tara Marka') and color combination on tobacco products compared to the plaintiff's mark ('Super Chand Tara Marka').
Arg Outlier Media Asianet News Private Limited v.Shailputri Media Private Limited
The Calcutta High Court granted interim protection to Arg Outlier Media Asianet News Private Limited in a passing off suit against Shailputri Media Private Limited. The court found that the defendant's use of 'Republic Hindi,' coupled with similar font and color schemes, was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark, 'Republic TV.' Despite arguments regarding the generic nature of the word 'Republic,' the court prioritized the visual similarity and prior usage by the plaintiff, granting the requested injunction.
Shambhu Nath & Brothers & Ors. v.Usha International Limited
In this trademark dispute, Shambhu Nath & Brothers successfully secured a favorable outcome against Usha International Limited. The respondent company voluntarily agreed to withdraw its application for the trademark 'TOOFAN' and provided an affidavit undertaking that it would neither use nor register the mark, or any similar mark, in the future. Consequently, the court disposed of the suit based on this binding commitment.
M/S. Lucky Exports v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
M/S. Lucky Exports challenged an order rejecting its appeal against the cancellation of Design No. 202108, which covered a 'Coaster Brake Sub Assembly'. The core dispute revolved around whether this mechanical component was purely functional and therefore ineligible for design registration, or if it possessed sufficient aesthetic features to qualify. The court examined arguments regarding prior publication and novelty, ultimately allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.
Srmb Srijan Private Limited v.Shreegopal Concrete Private Limited
The Calcutta High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Srmb Srijan Private Limited against Shreegopal Concrete Private Limited. The dispute centered on the 'X-Ribs' surface pattern used on TMT bars, which the plaintiff claimed constituted a distinctive trade dress and trademark acquired through long use and extensive marketing. The court found a strong prima facie case for passing off, noting that the defendant was using an identical imitation of the plaintiff's unique product indicia. This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to unregistered trade dress when demonstrating consumer association.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jasper Motors Private Limited v.The Proprietor, Basantee Battery Operated Rickshaw & Ors.
The plaintiff, Jasper Motors Private Limited, filed a suit regarding matters arising under the Patents and Design Act. The court initially faced issues regarding the admission of the plaint and whether proper leave had been obtained under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The court ultimately granted the necessary leave and admitted the plaint.
Vishnuprasad Mohanlal Panchal (Alias Ashok Panchal) v.Hitesh Vishnuprasad Panchal
The appeal was filed under Section 19(2) of the Designs Act, 2000 against an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that there was an inordinate delay (more than two years) between the conclusion of the hearing and the delivery of the final order regarding registered design no. 222514.
M/S.Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. v.Controller Of Patents And Designs And Ors.
The appellant challenged the refusal of design registration (Application No. 233798) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata. The High Court found that the Assistant Controller overlooked previous judicial observations regarding consistent application of registration parameters and incorrectly assessed the originality of the bottle design.
Sun Pharmadeuticals Industries Ltd. v.Stadmed Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Calcutta High Court allowed an application for amendment of the cause title, recognizing that the rights in the trademark 'ZOLAM' had been transferred from Sun Pharmadeuticals Industries Ltd. to Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited via a sanctioned scheme of arrangement. The court found the plaintiff's case unimpeachable and ruled that the successor company was entitled to continue the legal proceedings without delay.
Anchor Health And Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Another
The appellant challenged the Controller's decision to uphold the registration of several toothbrush designs, arguing they lacked novelty and were merely trade variants. The court found that certain registered designs were not original or new, particularly when compared to earlier published designs, leading to the setting aside of the Controller's order.
M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents and Designs & Anr.
M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd. appealed against an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that allowed a cancellation application for their registered design. The core issue was whether the design, which was created while Mr. Saraswat (a director) was employed with the appellant company, could be considered prior publication when he later used it for his respondent company.
M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents and Designs & Anr.
M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd. appealed against an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that allowed a cancellation application under Section 19 of the 2000 Act. The appellant argued that the design was created while its director, Mr. Saraswat, was employed with them, making the subsequent use by his new company improper.
M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents and Designs & Anr.
M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd appealed against an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that allowed a cancellation application under Section 19 of the 2000 Act. The appellant argued that the design was created during the employment of Mr. Chandresh Santosh Kumar Saraswat, who later joined the respondent company. The High Court set aside the Controller's order, finding that the prior publication ground was not properly considered.
K. C. Das Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v.K. C. Dass
The Calcutta High Court allowed an appeal filed by K. C. Das Pvt. Ltd., finding that the respondent, K. C. Dass, was engaging in passing off due to the use of a deceptively similar stylized mark. Although the defendant's business (readymade garments) was different from the plaintiff's (sweetmeats), the court held that adopting the same unique artistic style and font created sufficient confusion in the market. Consequently, the court set aside the lower court's order and granted an injunction preventing the respondent from using the plaintiff's distinctive stylistic presentation of its trade name.
Jyoti Jiten Bhatt Trading as Personal Care Systems v.Controller Of Patents And Design & Ors.
The appellant challenged the cancellation of their registered design, which had been cancelled based on a finding of prior publication. The respondents argued that the design was not new or original as it existed in the public domain since 1990. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that no evidence of prior publication regarding the pattern on the underside of the product was produced before the adjudicating Authority.
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.