Fox and Mandal and Another Vs. Somabrata Mandal and Others

The Role of Court Discretion in Consolidating IP Proceedings

Facts:The case primarily deals with an application for consolidation and analogous hearing of three related proceedings pending before the Intellectual Property Rights Division of the Court. The petitioner sought to consolidate these proceedings for effective and consistent determination of disputes concerning ownership and use of the mark.

Procedural Background: The petitioner moved for consolidation of the suit (IP-COM 6 of 2025) with a writ petition (WPO-IPD 1 of 2025) and another commercial suit (IP-COM 31 of 2025), all concerning rival claims to rights in the trademark "Fox & Mandal." The claimed reliefs included quashing of impugned communications by the Registrar of Trade Marks, removal of registrations, stay on implementation of certain registrations, injunctions preventing unauthorized use of the mark, and monetary damages.

Petitioner's contention: The facts reveal that the petitioner claimed ownership of the trademark "Fox & Mandal," arguing that all three proceedings raise common issues such as goodwill associated with the mark, possibility of confusion among consumers due to concurrent use, exclusive ownership disputes, and questions of whether one party can restrain another from using the mark. The petitioner cited judicial precedents including Prem Lala Nahata & Ors. vs. Chandi Prasad Sikaria (2007) 2 SCC 551 and Chittivalasa Jute Mills vs. Jaypee Rewa Cement (2004) 3 SCC 85 to support the request for consolidation based on common questions of law and facts.

Respondent's contention: The respondents, who are the plaintiffs in the suit opposing consolidation, contended that the application was an abuse of process filed to delay proceedings. They argued that the suit before the Court was for passing off and that the defendants had failed to file their Written Statement within the mandatory 120-day period, indicating their intention to stall the case. They further noted that the request for consolidation had been rejected repeatedly at different stages. They submitted that the different proceedings were at incomparable stages procedurally and that consolidation would thus be improper. They relied on case law including Monohar Lal vs. Ugrasen (2010) 11 SCC 557, Ananda Swarup Agarwal & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal AIR 2000 Cal 222, and Jai Singh vs. Union of India (1977) 1 SCC 1 in support of their stance.

Relevant Provision: The Court examined the provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which permit consolidation of proceedings as part of Case Management Hearing (Order IV A), and the court’s inherent power under Section 151 CPC. It also referred to Rule 18(b) of the Intellectual Property Rights Rules, 2023 applicable in the Calcutta High Court.

The Observation: The Court observed that while the power to consolidate is discretionary and may be applied to avoid conflicting decisions or duplication of effort when there are common issues of fact or law, the stage of the proceedings is a critical factor. The suit in IP-COM 6 of 2025 was well advanced with the plaintiff having completed opening arguments in a summary judgment application, while the other suits were at much earlier or dormant stages — the writ petition had been pending without trial, and the suit IP-COM 31 of 2025 had not seen service of the summons even after two years.

The Court emphasized that a diligent party should not be delayed or prejudiced because of the indolence of the opposing party. The issues in the writ petition and other suits had no material bearing on the main disputes in the suit before the Court, which was a suit for passing off. The need for speedy disposal of commercial disputes as mandated by the Commercial Courts Act was explicitly noted, cautioning against delaying tactics through consolidation applications.

The Court further noted that the principal purpose of consolidation is to address strong common links in cause of action, injury, or relief claims, and to save time and costs. However, it may be refused where it could cause delay or embarrassment to the trial process. The Court found no strong common link warranting consolidation and held that the stage of the various proceedings was incompatible for consolidation.

Issues in Suit and Issues in Writ: Relying on precedents such as Dyna Chem vs. Jaipal Das Punjabi (2021) 4 MPLJ 406 and Supriya Roy & Anr. vs. Bijaya Bose 2018 (2) CHN 372, the Court confirmed that the issues in the writ petition were unrelated to the present suit. The Court also distinguished the petitioner’s reliance on Prem Lala Nahata and Chittivalasa Jute Mills cases as factually inapposite.

Decision: Accordingly, the Court dismissed the application for consolidation as ill-motivated and misconceived but made no order as to costs. The judgment reinforces principles that while courts have wide discretion to consolidate cases with similar facts or issues, procedural stages and the interest of justice, including the avoidance of undue delay, are paramount considerations in exercising that discretion.

The decision crystalizes how courts balance procedural efficiency, litigants’ rights to expeditious trial, and the avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings in intellectual property disputes. It also highlights judicial vigilance against abuse of court process under pretexts such as consolidation for delaying the progress of substantive issues like passing off.

Case Title: Fox and Mandal and Another Vs. Somabrata Mandal and Others  

Order Date: 22nd September 2025  

Case Number:  IP-COM/6/2025  

Name of Court: High Court of Calcutta

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi