Mutha Brothers & Ors v. Arjun Singh Rajguru & Ors

GA No.3707 of 2017 (with CS No.265 of 2017)

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.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Calcutta High Court
Case Number
GA No.3707 of 2017 (with CS No.265 of 2017)
Judge(s)
Soumen Sen

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Calcutta High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Mutha Brothers & Ors vs Arjun Singh Rajguru & Ors is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademark

London Rubber Co. Ltd.vsDurex Products (Incorporated)

London Rubber Co. Ltd., who held the trade mark 'Durex' in India, appealed against a decision allowing Durex Products Inc. to register the identical mark 'Durex' for contraceptives. The court examined whether the application violated Section 8 (likelihood to deceive or cause confusion) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940.

trademarkW.P.(C) 4846/2011

Pm Diesels Pvt LtdvsThukral Mechanical Works And Ors

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging an IPAB order that rejected its request to implead the original trademark assignor. The court held that since the petitioner was questioning both the initial registration and the subsequent assignment as potentially fraudulent, the assignor (M/s Jain Industries) should have been included from the outset. Given the passage of time, the High Court found it inappropriate to allow impleadment at this late stage, thereby upholding the IPAB's decision.

trademarkCOMIPL 60-20

Dsp Investment Managers Private LimitedvsDsp Realty

Dsp Investment Managers Private Limited filed an interim application alleging passing off against Dsp Realty, citing the use of the similar word 'DSP'. The Plaintiff, a major player in financial services, claimed substantial goodwill associated with its marks. Given that the Defendant failed to appear and provide a defense, the Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim injunction. This order restricts the Defendant from using the mark containing 'DSP' in related financial sectors, protecting the Plaintiff's market reputation.

trademarkC.M.A.No.2470 of 2016

Sri Narasu's Coffee Company LtdvsNarasu's Sarathy Industries

The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Sri Narasu's Coffee Company Ltd against a lower court order. The company successfully argued that it is the exclusive owner of the 'Narasu's' trade mark, dating back to 1926. Given the risk of irreparable injury and loss of goodwill due to the respondents granting licenses to third parties, the Court issued an interim injunction. This order mandates that the respondents cease all licensing or assignment activities related to the trademark until the final disposal of the civil suits.

trademarkIA-1-2020 (in Commercial IP Suit (L) No.42 of 2020)

Unilever Plc.vsDeepak Talreja

The petitioner, Unilever Plc., filed an interim application seeking various reliefs. The court granted leave for the plaintiff to combine the cause of action of passing off with that of infringement. Ad-interim orders were continued, including a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from using trade dress or marks deceptively similar to 'BROOKE BOND RED LABEL and the U-Logo' in the tea industry.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Facing a trademark dispute?

Arctic's TM litigation team handles ~120 trademark matters per year across India, EU, and UK. From oppositions to infringement actions, we build winning arguments from precedent.

Talk to our TM team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar trademark matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call