Plaintiff Favorable
117 plaintiff favorable decisions from Calcutta High Court.
Plaintiff Favorable Decisions
117 cases | Page 4 of 4
Jyoti Jiten Bhatt Trading As Personal Care Systems v.Controller Of Patents And Design & Ors.
The appellant challenged the cancellation order of their registered design (No. 191896) passed by the Assistant Controller. The core dispute revolved around whether prior publications invalidated the design's originality. The court found that the registered design was at variance with the evidence produced regarding prior publication, thus upholding its validity.
Marico Limited v.J.K. Enterprises & Others
The dispute centered on whether J.K. Enterprises was passing off its coconut oil, sold under the name "Nihal," as that of Marico Limited (or its predecessor). The court examined the similarity between the two packaging designs and marks, concluding that the defendant's use was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark 'Nihar'.
R.R. Proteins And Agro Limited v.Hari Shankar Singhania & Another
The plaintiff asserted exclusivity over its word mark 'Arati' in edible oil against the defendant's use of 'Sandhya Arati'. The court found that despite the addition of 'Sandhya', the prominent feature 'Arati' was incorporated, leading to infringement and passing-off. Consequently, an injunction was granted restraining the defendants from using the infringing mark.
Tega Industries Ltd v.Kaveri Polymers (P) Ltd
Tega Industries Ltd filed a petition against Kaveri Polymers (P) Ltd regarding infringement of its patent, No. 231453. Since the defendant failed to appear despite repeated opportunities, the court confirmed the earlier interim order restraining infringement and granted relief in terms of the plaintiff's prayer.
Vipul Amrutlal Shah v.Shree Venkatesh Films Pvt. Ltd.
Vipul Amrutlal Shah filed a suit alleging that the Bengali film 'Poran Jaey Joliya Re' infringed his copyright in the successful Hindi film 'Namastey London'. The core dispute centered on whether copying the storyline and plot amounted to infringement, despite the legal principle that there is no copyright in an idea. The court found substantial similarity and granted interim relief.
Radio Today Broadcasting Ltd. v.Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd.
RTB challenged IPRS's claim that it held exclusive rights to grant licenses and demand payment for the broadcast of sound recordings. RTB argued that its business was being threatened by IPRS, which claimed copyright over underlying works. The court ultimately granted a quia timet injunction restraining IPRS from initiating proceedings against RTB.
Pankaj Jaiswal v.Virendra Prasad Jaiswal
The plaintiff, Shiva Engineering Company, a manufacturer of electric fans under the registered trademark 'SEC', filed an appeal against an order restraining the defendant from using the word 'SEC'. The dispute centered on alleged passing off and infringement of trade marks and copyright by the defendant, who used similar branding and packaging. The court upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiff had a strong case for passing off.
Three-N-Products Private Ltd. v.Karnataka Soaps And Detergents Limited
The Calcutta High Court ruled in favor of Three-N-Products Private Ltd., granting an interim injunction against Karnataka Soaps And Detergents Limited (Respondent No. 1) for passing off and infringing its registered trademark 'Ayur'. The court found that the petitioner was the senior user of the mark, despite the respondent having a subsequent registration of 'Mysore Sandal Ayur Care.' This decision emphasizes the importance of establishing seniority in trade mark disputes, particularly when dealing with deceptively similar marks.
Hindustan Lever Limited v.Cavin Kare Limited And Ors.
The petitioner (Hindustan Lever Limited) filed contempt applications alleging that the respondents (Cavin Kare Limited and Ors.) willfully breached an undertaking recorded during a prior compromise regarding Patent No. 169917. The undertaking prohibited the manufacture and marketing of fairness cream using Silicone compound in combination with specific ingredients covered by the patent. After considering conflicting reports, the Court found the breach deliberate and wilful.
Allergan Inc. v.Chetana Pharmaceuticals
The plaintiff filed a suit for passing off against the defendant regarding the identical mark "Oxyline" used for medicinal products (eye drop vs. nasal drop). The court examined the claims of senior user status by both parties and the potential confusion arising from using similar marks on vital medicines.
Gopal Glass Works Ltd. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And ...
Gopal Glass Works Ltd. appealed an order by the Assistant Controller directing the cancellation of Design No. 190336, which protected their industrial design for figured glass sheets. The respondent argued that the design was not new or original due to prior publication and ownership issues. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the cancellation order.
Century Plyboards (India) Ltd. v.Assam Wood And Allied Products
The Calcutta High Court set aside a lower court's order that had rejected an application for interim injunction. The court found that the defendant's use of 'CENTURIAN' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'CENTURY' in the plywood industry. The judgment emphasized that consumers, especially those with imperfect recollection, could be easily misled by the similarity, thus granting a temporary injunction to protect the plaintiff's goodwill and brand reputation.
Khadim Shoe Pvt. Ltd. v.Bata India Ltd.
Khadim Shoe Pvt. Ltd. filed an application seeking cancellation of Bata India Ltd.'s registered design (No. 177386) on the ground that it was published prior to registration. Khadim presented evidence, including print advertisements and television footage shown in slow motion, arguing that the public had been made aware of the design before its official registration.
T.I. Raleign Industries Limited And ... v.Cycle Corporation Of India Ltd.
The Calcutta High Court granted leave to the respondents (T.I. Raleign Industries) to enter into an agreement allowing a third-party manufacturer (Avery Cycle Industries Ltd.) to use their registered trademarks. This decision was made despite previous judicial restrictions preventing such assignments or licenses, recognizing that the applicants sought statutory permission for user rights. The court imposed strict conditions, requiring the parties to substantiate bonafide intent and act within an eight-week timeframe, emphasizing that this order did not constitute a final judgment on the merits.
Reckitt & Colman Of India Ltd. v.Jyothi Laboratories Ltd.
Reckitt & Colman (appellant) challenged advertisements by Jyothi Laboratories (respondent) that allegedly disparaged its whitening agent, 'Robin Blue', in favor of the respondent's product, 'Ujala'. The appeal concerned a third advertisement, leading to a dispute over whether the court should interfere with interim orders.
Calvin Klein Inc. v.International Apparel Syndicate
The Calcutta High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Calvin Klein Inc. against International Apparel Syndicate, finding a prima facie case of passing off. The court determined that the respondents were deliberately attempting to deceive consumers by using marks and advertisements virtually identical to those of the petitioner. Despite the petitioner not having local registration or business presence in India, the court held that its international reputation was sufficient grounds for protection, making the interim order absolute.
Esbi Transmissions Private Ltd. v.Collector Of Central Excise
Esbi Transmissions Private Ltd. challenged show cause notices issued by the Central Excise Department regarding its eligibility for SSI benefits while manufacturing 'Vulcan' diaphragm couplings. The department alleged that since a German company also used the 'VULCAN' trade name, Esbi was infringing on foreign rights and thus ineligible for duty exemptions. However, the Calcutta High Court ruled in favor of Esbi Transmissions, affirming that as the registered owner of the trademark 'Vulcan' in India, its use did not violate any provisions regarding third-party branding.
Chandra Bhan Agarwal And Anr. v.Arjundas Agarwal And Ors.
The appeal challenged the registration of the trade mark 'Dora' (No. 252040) used by H. P. Textile Mills for hosiery goods. The appellants argued that 'Dora' is a common, generic word meaning thread or stripe and thus lacked distinctiveness. The court agreed that while the design acquired some distinctiveness, no monopoly should be granted over the word 'Dora' simpliciter.
The J.B. Williams Co., Inc And Anr. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks And Ors.
The petitioner, a manufacturer and proprietor of several trade marks related to toilet preparations, applied to be registered as a sole registered user. The Registrar refused the application citing concerns about foreign exchange expenditure affecting indigenous brands. The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that since the company was incorporated in India, it could not be classified as a foreign company for this purpose.
Prem Nath Mayer v.Registrar Of Trade Marks And Anr.
Prem Nath Mayer opposed the registration of 'Ma Durga Brand' for agricultural implements, claiming it was deceptively similar to his existing registered trade mark No. 12301. The High Court examined the legal principles governing opposition and deception, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant.
Mac Laboratories Private Ltd. v.American Home Products Corporation And Registrar of Trade Marks
In this 1968 Calcutta High Court appeal, Mac Laboratories Private Ltd. successfully challenged the registration of the trademark 'Dristan' belonging to American Home Products Corporation. The court ruled that the original registration was contrary to law because there was no bona fide intention by the proprietor to use the mark in India. Furthermore, the appellant argued grounds including lack of distinctiveness and deceptive similarity to other marks, ultimately leading the court to allow the appeal and rectify the register.
Western Engineering Co. v.Paul Engineering Co.
The petitioner applied for the revocation of the respondent's cycle lock design (No. 127199) under Section 51-A of the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911. The petitioner argued that their earlier registered design (No. 125728) was prior art and that the respondent's design lacked novelty or originality. After examining the designs, the court found sufficient similarity to allow the application.
Registrar Of Trade Marks And Anr. v.Kumar Ranjan Sen And Ors.
The dispute concerned the validity and cancellation of a trade mark registration ('A. P. C.') which was granted while a notice of opposition was pending. The lower court allowed an appeal against the cancellation order, arguing that the Deputy Registrar lacked jurisdiction. The High Court ultimately ruled that the Deputy Registrar had ample jurisdiction to cancel the registration.
Hiralal Banjara v.Bashiram Sharma And Ors.
Hiralal Banjara sought rectification of a patent register entry after the execution sale of his rights was set aside by the High Court. The case involved complex issues regarding the scope of the Controller's power and whether Hiralal Banjara qualified as an aggrieved person.
Calico Printers Association, Ltd. v.D.N. Mukerjea
The plaintiffs, proprietors of three registered cotton designs, sued the defendant for copyright infringement after discovering he was importing and selling similar designs on cotton materials. The dispute centered on whether the defendant knowingly infringed the copyrights or merely sold goods in ignorance of the rights.
Indian Vacuum Brake Co., Ltd. v.E.S. Luard
The petitioner challenged the validity of Patent No. 8018, granted to E.S. Luard, arguing that it lacked novelty and invention, and was anticipated by prior art (Hardy's Patent and existing designs). The court found that the respondent's patent was not an improvement on the petitioner's design and disclosed no invention.
Ernest Otto Gammeter v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Gammeter appealed against the cancellation of his watch band design registration by the Controller. The core legal issues were whether the Controller had the authority to cancel the registration based on a third party's application, and whether Gammeter's design constituted a novel invention.
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.