Fox and Mandal Trademark Case – High Court of Calcutta
Facts
The case concerns 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 regarding ownership and use of the mark.
Procedural Background
The petitioner requested 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”. Reliefs claimed included quashing of impugned communications by the Registrar of Trade Marks, removal of registrations, stay on implementation of registrations, injunctions preventing unauthorized use, and monetary damages.
Petitioner’s Contention
The petitioner claimed ownership of the trademark “Fox & Mandal”, arguing that all three proceedings raised common issues such as goodwill associated with the mark, consumer confusion due to concurrent use, exclusive ownership disputes, and whether one party could restrain the other from using the mark. Judicial precedents cited included:
- Prem Lala Nahata & Ors. vs. Chandi Prasad Sikaria (2007) 2 SCC 551
- Chittivalasa Jute Mills vs. Jaypee Rewa Cement (2004) 3 SCC 85
These were relied upon to support the request for consolidation based on common questions of law and fact.
Respondent’s Contention
The respondents opposed consolidation, calling the application an abuse of process intended to delay proceedings. They argued:
- The main suit was for passing off, and the defendants had failed to file a Written Statement within 120 days, showing intent to stall the case.
- Consolidation requests had been rejected repeatedly earlier.
- The proceedings were at different procedural stages, making consolidation 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
- Jai Singh vs. Union of India (1977) 1 SCC 1
Relevant Provision
The Court referred to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015), which allows consolidation under Case Management Hearing (Order IV A) and the Court’s inherent power under Section 151 CPC. Rule 18(b) of the Intellectual Property Rights Rules, 2023 (Calcutta High Court) was also noted.
The Observation
The Court observed:
- Consolidation is discretionary and helps avoid conflicting decisions when common issues exist.
- The stage of proceedings is crucial—IP-COM 6 of 2025 was well advanced, while the writ petition was pending without trial, and IP-COM 31 of 2025 had not progressed even after two years.
- A diligent party should not suffer delay due to the opposing party’s inaction.
- The writ petition and other suits had no material bearing on the main dispute (a passing off suit).
- The Commercial Courts Act emphasizes speedy disposal, and consolidation should not be used to delay trials.
The Court emphasized that consolidation is appropriate only when there are strong common links in cause of action or reliefs, but it may be refused if it causes delay or affects trial efficiency.
Issues in Suit and Writ
Citing Dyna Chem vs. Jaipal Das Punjabi (2021) 4 MPLJ 406 and Supriya Roy & Anr. vs. Bijaya Bose 2018 (2) CHN 372, the Court held that the issues in the writ petition were unrelated to the current suit. The petitioner’s reliance on Prem Lala Nahata and Chittivalasa Jute Mills was found inapplicable.
Decision
The Court dismissed the consolidation application as ill-motivated and misconceived, with no order as to costs. The ruling clarified that while courts may consolidate related cases, the stage of proceedings and avoidance of undue delay are paramount.
This judgment underscores the balance between procedural efficiency, the right to a speedy trial, and preventing abuse of process in intellectual property disputes.
Case Details
- Case Title: Fox and Mandal and Another Vs. Somabrata Mandal and Others
- Order Date: 22nd September 2025
- Case Number: IP-COM/6/2025
- Court: High Court of Calcutta
- 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
