Factual Background:
Bardhaman Agro Products I Private Limited (Petitioner), a rice manufacturer since 2001, holds the registered trademark "ROSE" with a rose device (Class 30, registered 2005). In March 2024, it discovered Kiran Mallik (Respondent) using "MAMU ROSE" with a similar rose device for rice, registered in 2019 with a claimed use since 2016. The Petitioner alleges infringement and passing off, citing deceptive similarity and intent to exploit its goodwill.
Procedural Background:
The suit (IP-COM/20/2024) was filed in the High Court at Calcutta, with two applications: GA-COM/1/2024 for interim relief and GA-COM/2/2024 for plaint rejection. Both were heard together by consent, with judgment delivered on March 28, 2025.
Reasoning of Court:
The court found the Petitioner’s "ROSE" mark, used since 2001 and registered in 2005, visually, phonetically, and structurally similar to the Respondent’s "MAMU ROSE" (registered 2019). The rose device imitation infringed the Petitioner’s copyright and trademark, risking consumer confusion in identical trade channels. The Respondent’s adoption was deemed dishonest, lacking justification, and aimed at exploiting the Petitioner’s goodwill. Prior use trumped registration, and jurisdiction was upheld based on sales within Calcutta. A prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm favored the Petitioner.
Decision:
GA-COM/1/2024 was allowed, granting an injunction against the Respondent’s use of "MAMU ROSE." GA-COM/2/2024 was dismissed, upholding the suit’s maintainability.
Case Title:Bardhaman Agro Products Private Limited Vs. Kiran Mallik
Date of Order: March 28, 2025
Case Number: IP-COM/20/2024
Name of Court High Court at Calcutta
-Name of Hon’ble Judge: Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur
