Calcutta High Court | Intellepedia

Old Music, New Platforms, No Rights: 1977 Bhikari Bal Odia Music Agreement Limitations

In a dispute concerning copyright in Odia devotional music, the Calcutta High Court declined interim protection to the petitioner who claimed exclusive rights in the song “Sathi Pauti Bhoga” through agreements with Bhikari Bal and Radhanath Das. The court held that the agreements were of limited duration, royalty obligations were not fulfilled, and allegations of forgery raised serious questions of fact.

Coconut Oil Bottle Trade Dress Protection and Injunction Confirmed

In the case of Edible Products (India) Limited vs Shalimar Chemical Works Private Limited, the Calcutta High Court considered whether the trade dress of coconut oil bottles—including shape, colour scheme, and packaging—was being passed off by a rival trader. The court concluded that the plaintiff’s trade dress had acquired distinctiveness and was entitled to protection under the law of passing off.

Notarized document from a foreign Country must be accepted, says Calcutta High Court in Trademark case

A person stands facing three doors labeled "Foreign Notary," "Notary" (center), and "Indian Notary," symbolizing the dilemma of choosing between different types of notarization for legal documents.

Calcutta HC rules notarized foreign documents valid without apostille in Marriott trademark opposition, reinforcing fair procedure and natural justice.

Intra-Court Appeals Not Maintainable in Trademark Appeals: Calcutta High Court Interprets Section 100A CPC

In the case of Glorious Investment Limited vs Dunlop International Limited & Anr., the Calcutta High Court ruled that no intra-court appeal lies against an order of a Single Judge made under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act. The court held that once a Single Judge exercises appellate jurisdiction under the Act, a further appeal is barred by Section 100A of the Civil Procedure Code.

Patent Refusal Cannot Be a Single Line: Calcutta High Court Calls for Reasoned Orders

Yellow road marking with bold black text reading “SINGLE LINE. DO NOT CROSS,” symbolizing the lack of reasoning in the Stromag GmbH patent refusal—a single-line decision that violated principles of natural justice.

In the case of Stromag GmbH vs. Controller General of Patents, the Calcutta High Court ruled that patent refusal orders must contain detailed reasoning. A single-line dismissal, the court said, does not meet the legal standards of a quasi-judicial function and is unsustainable.

Calcutta High Court Clarifies Scope of Section 3(h) in Patent Law: Base SE v. Controller of Patents

Silhouette of a farmer spraying crops with pesticides on one side and a tractor on the other, with rows of crop plants in between, set against a green background.

In Base SE v. Deputy Controller of Patents, the Calcutta High Court ruled that scientific and technical inventions addressing agricultural problems are not excluded under Section 3(h). It also clarified that partial grant of patent claims is not permitted under Indian patent law.

Court cancels 75-Year-Old TRIUMPH Trademark for Non-Use in Favor of Triumph Motorcycles

A red Triumph motorcycle parked on a scenic road with a backdrop of green fields, forest, and majestic mountain ranges under a bright blue sky with scattered clouds.

In the case of Triumph Designs Limited v. Tube Investments of India and Anr., the Calcutta High Court addressed two critical issues: whether the petitioner was a person aggrieved under Section 47 of the Trademarks Act, and whether the TRIUMPH mark had been unused for a statutory period justifying its cancellation.

Pharmacyclics Divisional Patent Application Upheld by Calcutta High Court

3D molecular structures illustrating chemical bonding and a detailed fluorinated organic compound model with carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and fluorine atoms

Calcutta High Court upholds Pharmacyclics divisional patent application for ibrutinib-anti-CD20 therapy, interpreting Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970.

Delay in Copyright Lawsuit Costs Plaintiff Urgent Relief and Mediation Exemption

A beige background with a black rectangular stamp reading "URGENTLY REQUIRED" in bold letters. The text is overlaid with a large red "X" inside a red circle, symbolizing cancellation or denial of urgency.

In the case of Inreco Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Nav Records Pvt. Ltd., the Calcutta High Court held that a copyright suit filed without genuine urgency could not bypass pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. The Court revoked the exemption and dismissed the suit.

Shindengen’s Patent Application remanded for fresh consideration for lack of reasoned order

Illustration of a desk lamp shining light on the glowing handwritten text "Reasoned order?" set against a dark blue background.

The Calcutta High Court remanded Shindengen Electric’s 2015 patent application after finding that the rejection order lacked proper reasoning. The decision emphasised the need for administrative transparency and importance of importance of judicial reasoning.