Judge Profile

Bench:Arijit Banerjee

7 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.

Cases Presided Over

7 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1

patent defendant favorable · Sep 24, 2025

Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited v.Anita Anu

Calcutta High Court · APDT/16/2025 (with IP-COM/28/2024)

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.

patent pending · Jun 30, 2025

Goodfaith Holding Private Limited v.M/S Supreme Wood Products Private Limited

Calcutta High Court · APOT/141/2025

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.

patent mixed · Apr 2, 2019

Shyam Steel Industries Limited v.Shyam Sel And Power Limited & Anr.

Calcutta High Court · GA 857 of 2019 with CS 63 of 2019

This Calcutta High Court judgment addresses a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Shyam Steel Industries Limited against Shyam Sel And Power Limited. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were exploiting its reputation by using 'Shyam' on their TMT bar packaging, despite previous agreements to phase out the mark. However, the court noted the defendant's claim of honest adoption and the common nature of the word 'Shyam'. Consequently, the court declined to grant an immediate injunction but allowed the defendants time to file a detailed affidavit-in-opposition.

patent mixed · Mar 19, 2019

Shyam Steel Industries Limited v.Shyam Sel And Power Limited & Anr.

Calcutta High Court · CS No.63 of 2019

Shyam Steel Industries Limited filed a suit against Shyam Sel And Power Limited & Anr. alleging infringement of trademark and passing off. The Calcutta High Court accepted the plaint, noting that no leave was required under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865. Given concerns about potential concealment of infringing products, the court dispensed with mediation provisions.

patent plaintiff favorable · May 5, 2017

Eveready Industries India Limited v.Euro-Solo Energy Systems Limited

Calcutta High Court · CS No.124 of 2009

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.

trademark plaintiff favorable · Mar 28, 2017

Ajanta Pharma Ltd v.Uas Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd & Another

Calcutta High Court · CS 285 of 2009

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.

patent dismissed · Jun 6, 2016

Akb Jagannath Nag v.Union Of India & Ors.

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) · M.A.T. 359 of 2016

Akb Jagannath Nag challenged an order from the Controllers of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that subsequent approval under Section 6 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, should interfere with the impugned order. The court considered this new development but found it necessary for the appellant to approach the Single Judge for review or proceed via appeal.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Consult our team →