Bench:Arindam Mukherjee
10 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
10 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
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.