[ad_1]
Calcutta High Court
Moondust Paper Pvt Ltd vs Vinay Shaw And Others on 8 August, 2025
Author: Ravi Krishan Kapur
Bench: Ravi Krishan Kapur
OIP-7
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Intellectual Property Rights Division)
ORIGINAL SIDE
IA NO. GA-COM/1/2024
In
IP-COM/44/2024
MOONDUST PAPER PVT LTD.
Vs
VINAY SHAW AND OTHERS
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR
Date : 8th August, 2025
Appearance:
Mr. Sayantan Basu, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Tanmoy Roy, Adv.
Mr. Bhavesh Garodia, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Chakraborty, Adv.
Ms. A. Roy, Adv.
...for the plaintiff/petitioner.
The Court: This is a rolled-up action complaining of infringement of trade
mark, copyright and passing off.
Briefly, the petitioner is a company engaged in the manufacture, trade,
import and export of smoker's articles like cigarette paper booklet, matchboxes,
card board filter tips for cigarette, booklets of rolling paper, crushing tray, cone
filler, cone roller, pre-rolled smoking-paper cone, blunt paper, pre-rolled blunt
smoking cone, roll of cigarette paper, booklets of flavoured rolling paper, pre-
rolled flavoured smoking cone etc.
The petitioner has been carrying on the above business under the trade
mark "CAPTAIN GOGO" "GOGO". It is submitted that the above mark of the
petitioner was conceived of and coined by its predecessor-in-interest since 2015.
The mark has become synonymous with the products of the petitioner and is
exclusively identifiable with the petitioner. The petitioner is also the owner of
2
the artistic work in the mark "GOGO". The petitioner relies on different trade
mark registrations as well as registration under the Copyright Act, 1957 insofar
as the artistic work contained in the label and packaging in the various products
are concerned.
It is contended that the petitioner sells its products both through offline
and online through its website, www.captaingogo.com The petitioner claims to
have made substantial expenditure insofar as its advertisement is concerned.
The petitioner also boasts of impressive sale figures.
This suit has been instituted primarily against the respondent nos.1, 2, 3,
5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 carrying on identical business and selling deceptively similar
products as that of the petitioner. The respondent nos. 7 and 11 are
manufacturers of deceptively similar products as that of the petitioner. It is
alleged that the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 are dealing with identical goods
under the deceptively similar name “GOGO” and “GOGA”, thereby infringing on
the mark of the petitioner and the artistic work in the copyright owned by the
petitioner. The respondent no.4 to 11 are also infringing the mark and the
artistic work in the copyright owned by the petitioner and are also passing off its
goods as that of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner prays for
protective reliefs.
Despite service, none appears on behalf of any of the respondents even in
the second call.
A comparison of the rival products is set out below:
Sl. Respondent Marks Used by Petitioner’s Seizure Boxes Seized
Name / No. the Mark Date
Respondents
1. Ranajoy CAPITAL CAPTAIN 16.05.2024 80 boxes paper
Chaurasiya COCO GOGO roll of CAPTAIN
/ no. 4 & GO THREE & COCO each boxes
3
GO TWINS containing 56b
pieces & 160
boxes of Go Three
paper each box
containing 50
pieces
2. Toufique Captain CAPTAIN 16.05.2024 30 boxes of
Ahmed / GOGO, GOGO Captain GOGO
no.5 Captain rolled papers each
COCO, Super box contains 70
Go India, ‘Go pieces, 20 boxes
Three’ Paper, of captain COCO,
each box contains
56 pieces, 50
boxes of Super Go
India Pre-Rolled
Cone, each box
contains 64 pieces
and 650 boxes of
‘Go Three’ Paper
each box
containing 50
pieces and apart
from that there
are good number
similar articles
bearing the mark
BABA MG
3. Munna CAPTAIN CAPTAIN 16.05.2024 600 boxes of
Singh / no.6 GOGO GOGO GOGO paper
rolled each box
contains 10 pieces
each.
4. Vinay CAPTAIN CAPTAIN NA NA
Gupta / COCO GOGO
no.7
4
5. Hirendra GO N GO CAPTAIN 02.07.2024 120 packets of GO
Kumar GOGO N GO Perfect Roll
Sahoo / Ultra-Thin Paper
no.8 and 12 packets of
GO THR3E Filter
Tips and 3 Rolling
Papers.
6. Twinkle GO N GO CAPTAIN 02.07.2024 40 packets GO N
Sahoo / no. GOGO GO Perfect Roll
9 Ultra-Thin Paper
and 27 packets
GO THR3E three
paper, Ultra-Thin
Paper.
7. Rabinarayan GO N GO CAPTAIN 02.07.2024 100 packets GO N
Sahoo / GOGO GO Perfect Roll
no.10 Ultra-Thin Paper
and 77 packets
GO THR3E Ultra-
Thin Paper.
GO THREE
8. Sujoy Roy / GO N GO CAPTAIN NA NA
no. 11 GOGO
GO THREE
It is evident that the impugned products fall in the same category as that
of the petitioners’ and are also being sold through the same trade channels. In
5
selling the impugned products, the respondents are acting in a fraudulent and
dishonest manner. There is every attempt made to imitate not only the
petitioner’s name but also the copyright registration which is being enjoyed by
the petitioner. Prima facie, there is every possibility of confusion and disruption
among the public.
In such circumstances, there is a strong case for infringement of trade
mark and copyright as well as passing off which has been made out by the
petitioner. On a bare examination, the marks of the respondent are visually and
phonetically similar to that of the petitioner. There is every likelihood of the
public being confused and deceived. While examining such cases, what has to be
kept in mind is the purchaser of such goods in India who may have absolutely
no or very little knowledge of the English language and to whom different words
with minor difference in spellings may sound phonetically similar.
Insofar as passing off is concerned, one of the important tests which has
to be applied in each case is whether the misrepresentation made by the
respondent is of such a nature that is likely to cause an ordinary consumer to
confuse one product for another due to similarity of marks and other
surrounding factors. [Cadila Healthcare Limited Vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals
Limited,(2020) 5 SCC 73]
In Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah, (2002) 3 SCC 65 it has been
held as follows:
“10. A person may sell his goods or deliver his services such as in case of a
profession under a trading name or style. With the lapse of time such
business or services associated with a person acquire a reputation or
goodwill which becomes a property which is protected by courts. A
competitor initiating sale of goods or services in the same name or by
imitating that name results in injury to the business of one who has the
property in that name. The law does not permit any one to carry on his
business in such a way as would persuade the customers or clients in
believing that the goods or services belonging to someone else are his or are
6
associated therewith. It does not matter whether the latter person does so
fraudulently or otherwise. The reasons are two. Firstly, honesty and fair
play are, and ought to be, the basic policies in the world of business.
Secondly, when a person adopts or intends to adopt a name in connection
with his business or services which already belongs to someone else it
results in confusion and has propensity of diverting the customers and
clients of someone else to himself and thereby resulting in injury.”
Prima facie, the respondents appear to be infringing the petitioner’s mark
and passing off their products as that of the petitioner.
The petitioner has been able to demonstrate a strong case on merits. The
balance of convenience and inconvenience and irreparably injury is also in
favour of orders being passed as prayed for herein.
In such circumstances, there shall be an order in terms of prayers (a), (b)
and (c) of the Notice of Motion.
With the above directions, IA NO. GA-COM/1/2024 stands disposed of.
(RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.)
spal
[ad_2]
Source link