{"id":114924,"date":"2024-12-12T17:56:23","date_gmt":"2024-12-12T12:26:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/?p=114924"},"modified":"2025-07-02T11:42:49","modified_gmt":"2025-07-02T06:12:49","slug":"trademark-infringement-fighter-vs-fitter-calcutta-high-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/trademark-infringement-fighter-vs-fitter-calcutta-high-court\/","title":{"rendered":"The sticky trademark fight between “FIGHTER” and “FITTER”"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the case of Kamal Kumar Hirawat vs Maruti Poly Films & Ors<\/em>, the Calcutta High Court granted interim relief to Kamal Kumar Hirawat (\u201cPetitioner\u201d), the sole proprietor of M\/s. Hirawat Trading Co., against Maruti Poly Films and others (\u201cRespondent\u201d). The case pertains to the alleged unauthorized use of the trademark “FITTER” by the respondents, which the petitioner claimed to be deceptively similar to the registered trademark “FIGHTER,” being used for adhesive tapes since 1995.<\/p>\n

The Petitioner alleged that in the year 2024, they discovered that the Respondents had applied to register a deceptively similar trademark, \u201cFITTER\u201d for the sale of adhesive tapes. This prompted the Petitioner to file a Notice of Opposition before the TM registry. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondents had deliberately adopted a mark closely resembling “FIGHTER” to cause confusion among consumers and capitalize on the Petitioner\u2019s goodwill.<\/p>\n

On examining both adhesive tapes presented during the hearing, the court was satisfied that the respondents\u2019 mark was deceptively similar to the petitioner\u2019s trademark. The Court observed that the Respondents\u2019 adoption of the mark “FITTER,” by replacing the letters “GH” with the letter “T,” was likely to cause confusion in the minds of the general public.<\/p>\n

The court held that the petitioner was able to demonstrate a prima facie case of infringement, and that the balance of convenience lay in the Petitioner\u2019s favor. The Court also noted the potential for irreparable harm to the petitioner\u2019s business if the respondents were allowed to continue using the mark.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the Court granted an ad interim injunction restraining Maruti Poly Films from using the trademark \u201dFITTER\u201d or any other mark similar to \u201cFIGHTER\u201d.<\/p>\n

Citation: Kamal Kumar Hirawat vs Maruti Poly Films & Ors., High Court of Calcutta, 5th<\/sup> July, 2024 [IA NO. GA-COM\/1\/2024 IP-COM\/15\/2024] \u00a0Available at: <\/em><\/strong>https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/18224658\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Authored by Bhavishya B, Associate, BananaIP Counsels<\/strong><\/p>\n

Disclaimer<\/strong><\/h4>\n

The case note\/s in this blog post have been written by IP Attorneys at BananaIP Counsels based on their review and understanding of the Judgments. It may be noted that other IP attorneys and experts in the field may have different opinions about the cases or arrive at different conclusions therefrom. It is advisable to read the Judgments before making any decisions based on the case notes.<\/p>\n

If you have any questions, or if you wish to speak with an\u00a0IP expert\/attorney<\/a>, please reach us at:\u00a0contact@bananaip.com<\/a>\u00a0or 91-80-26860414\/24\/34.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Calcutta High Court granted interim relief in a trademark dispute involving “FIGHTER” and “FITTER” for adhesive tapes, finding deceptive similarity. The decision highlights the court\u2019s approach to trademark protection and irreparable harm in such cases.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":8,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5495,6,11],"tags":[11341,5531,5341,5,4374,6521,41,6335],"class_list":["post-114924","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-case-reviews","category-intellectual-property","category-trademarks","tag-adhesive-tapes","tag-calcutta-high-court","tag-deceptive-similarity","tag-intellectual-property","tag-interim-injunction","tag-legal-case-analysis","tag-trademark-infringement-2","tag-trademark-law-india"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114924","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=114924"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114924\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":141894,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114924\/revisions\/141894"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=114924"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=114924"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=114924"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}