Bench:Arindam Mukherjee
15 IP cases indexed. Covers trademark, patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
15 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Dunlop Aircraft Tyres Limited v.Registrar Of Trademarks And Another
This is a procedural order from the Calcutta High Court's Intellectual Property Rights Division in a trademark matter. After hearing the parties, the court treated the matter as heard-in-part since substantial arguments had been advanced. The matter was adjourned and listed for further consideration on 26th November, 2026.
Vikrant Chemico Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.PCMX Hygiene Products Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
This is a review application filed by the respondents seeking review of an order dated 23rd March, 2018, in a rectification proceeding. The review application was originally filed before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) but stood transferred to the Calcutta High Court following the abolition of IPAB under the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. The Court directed the matter to be listed in November 2026 and asked the advocates to resolve discrepancies in the arrangement of papers in the paper book.
Sumitomo Rubber Industries Limited v.Glorious Investments Limited And Anr.
This is a rectification application before the Calcutta High Court's Intellectual Property Rights Division concerning trademarks originally associated with Dunlop India Limited (DIL). The petitioner, Sumitomo Rubber Industries Limited, argued that the chain of trademark assignments from DIL to the respondent Glorious Investments Limited is void because the assignments post-date the winding up petition against DIL, which was allowed on 31st January, 2013, with the winding up dating back to the date of filing. The petitioner further contended that DIL had admitted to being out of production at its Sahaganj and Ambattur Units, supporting non-use of the mark for over five years. The arguments could not be concluded and the matter was adjourned to 1st October, 2026.
Sumitomo Rubber Industries Limited v.Glorious Investments Limited and Anr.
This is a rectification application before the Calcutta High Court's Intellectual Property Rights Division concerning the trade mark 'Dunlop Fort' under No.7624 in Class 12, registered in the name of Glorious Investments Limited. The original applicant, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, was substituted by Sumitomo Rubber Industries Limited. The petitioner's counsel commenced arguments to establish Sumitomo's chain of title and right to maintain the rectification application, but arguments could not be concluded and the matter was adjourned.
Sumitomo Rubber Industries Limited v.Glorious Investments Limited and Anr.
This case involves a rectification application filed before the Calcutta High Court's Intellectual Property Rights Division concerning the trade mark 'Dunlop Fort' under No.7624 in Class 12, registered in the name of Glorious Investments Limited. The original applicant, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, was substituted by Sumitomo Rubber Industries Limited. The petitioner's counsel commenced arguments to establish Sumitomo's standing and right to maintain the rectification application, tracing the chain of title through various agreements, but the arguments could not be concluded.
Haw Par Corporation Limited v.Rangoon Chemicals Works Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
This matter concerns an application (GA-COM/1/2026) filed by Haw Par Corporation Limited on 5th August, 2026, seeking restoration of its earlier application (IPDATM 252 of 2023), which had been dismissed for default by an order dated 27th November, 2024. Before the Calcutta High Court's Intellectual Property Rights Division, the Court noted that service of the restoration application was not yet complete. The matter was directed to appear in the monthly list of October, 2026.
Haw Par Brothers International Limited v.Rangoon Chemicals Works Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
This is an order of the Calcutta High Court (Intellectual Property Rights Division) in an interlocutory application (IA No. GA-COM/1/2026) filed in the main proceeding IPDATM/249/2023. The petitioner, Haw Par Brothers International Limited, sought restoration of the main application, which had been dismissed for default by an order dated 27th November, 2024. The court noted that service of the restoration application, filed on 7th August, 2026, was not yet complete and directed the matter to appear in the monthly list of October, 2026.
Vikrant Chemico Industries Pvt Ltd v.PCMX Hygiene Products Pvt Ltd and Anr
This is an order sheet from the Intellectual Property Rights Division of the Calcutta High Court in a matter relating to a trade mark dispute. The court, on the prayer of the review applicant, peremptorily extended the time to file a supplementary affidavit till 17th August, 2026, and granted liberty to the respondents to file a rejoinder to the supplementary affidavit by 28th August, 2026. The matter was directed to appear in the monthly list of September, 2026.
Sanofi - Aventis v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks And Anr.
Sanofi - Aventis appealed an order from the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The appellant argued that the impugned order was perverse because it failed to adequately address arguments concerning lack of inventive steps and should have been based on Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Spencer'S Retail Limited v.Geetha Jorge Alias Geetha George & Others
Spencer'S Retail Limited filed a suit against Geetha Jorge Alias Geetha George & Others, alleging trademark infringement. The plaintiff argued that the City Civil Court was not the proper forum for seeking relief due to restrictions in the City Civil Courts Act, 1953, and because the matter had already been adjudicated.
OCV Intellectual Capital, LLC v.Union Of India & Ors.
The appellant challenged an order dated March 30, 2016, passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs rejecting its patent application. The court found that two appeals were filed challenging the same order (AID 18/2022 and IPDPTA 34/2022), making AID 18/2022 redundant. However, since the primary appeal (IPDPTA 34/2022) was dismissed for default, the court directed the parties to appear on a future date.
Bidisha Ghoshal v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Bidisha Ghoshal appealed the rejection of her trademark application '42 orchids' by The Registrar of Trade Marks, arguing that the Examiner's refusal was mechanical and lacked sufficient reasoning. The Calcutta High Court agreed, finding the impugned order cryptic and devoid of substantive discussion regarding similarity or likelihood of confusion. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter back to the authorities for a fresh examination, ensuring due process.
Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patent Act, 1970, challenging the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs' order dated April 12, 2023, which rejected its application for patent registration.
Upl Limited v.Haryana Pesticides Manufactures Association and Anr.
Upl Limited filed an appeal before the Calcutta High Court challenging an earlier order issued by the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademark. The court admitted the appeal, noting that no interim relief was warranted at this stage. The judgment sets out a clear procedural roadmap, directing the appellants to prepare and file comprehensive informal paper books within specified timelines for the matter to be heard on its merits.
Kanishk Sinha v.Dr Saumitra Mohan & Ors.
Kanishk Sinha filed a suit alleging patent infringement against Dr Saumitra Mohan & Ors. The plaintiff sought urgent interim relief but failed to satisfy the court regarding the necessity for dispensing with procedural formalities under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Court granted one further opportunity to the plaintiff to address these formal requirements.
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.