{"id":6230,"date":"2025-07-13T05:15:31","date_gmt":"2025-07-13T05:15:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=6230"},"modified":"2025-07-13T05:17:29","modified_gmt":"2025-07-13T05:17:29","slug":"descriptive-terms-distinctive-rights","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/descriptive-terms-distinctive-rights\/","title":{"rendered":"Descriptive Terms, Distinctive Rights"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"ITC_Limited_v_Pravin_Kumar_Ors\"><\/span>ITC Limited v. Pravin Kumar &amp; Ors.<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p class=\"meta\">Case Number: IP-COM\/12\/2025 | Date of Order: 20 June 2025 | Court: High Court at Calcutta, Original Side (IPR Division) | Judge: Hon\u2019ble Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/descriptive-terms-distinctive-rights\/#ITC_Limited_v_Pravin_Kumar_Ors\" >ITC Limited v. Pravin Kumar &amp; Ors.<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/descriptive-terms-distinctive-rights\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/descriptive-terms-distinctive-rights\/#Factual_Background\" >Factual Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/descriptive-terms-distinctive-rights\/#Procedural_Background\" >Procedural Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/descriptive-terms-distinctive-rights\/#Legal_Issues\" >Legal Issues<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/descriptive-terms-distinctive-rights\/#Discussion_on_Judgments\" >Discussion on Judgments<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/descriptive-terms-distinctive-rights\/#Reasoning_and_Analysis\" >Reasoning and Analysis<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/descriptive-terms-distinctive-rights\/#Final_Decision\" >Final Decision<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/descriptive-terms-distinctive-rights\/#Law_Settled_in_This_Case\" >Law Settled in This Case<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>This case presented before the Calcutta High Court is a comprehensive intellectual property dispute involving allegations of trademark infringement, copyright infringement, passing off, and trafficking in trademark rights. The plaintiff, ITC Limited, a dominant and long-standing player in the Indian tobacco industry, alleged that the defendants, including Pravin Kumar and associated entities, were engaged in manufacturing and distributing counterfeit cigarettes under the brand name \u201cGOLD STAG\u201d that bore deceptive similarity to ITC\u2019s well-known cigarette brand \u201cGOLD FLAKE.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The central legal question revolved around the extent to which a company can claim proprietary rights over a composite mark containing a laudatory expression like \u201cGOLD\u201d and whether the defendants\u2019 packaging constituted infringement or passing off.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_Background\"><\/span>Factual Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>ITC Limited is a multinational conglomerate with a substantial presence in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes in India under the brand \u201cGOLD FLAKE,\u201d a trademark that it has allegedly used uninterruptedly since 1905. The plaintiff possesses numerous trademark and copyright registrations in India for marks such as \u201cGOLD FLAKE Hallmark,\u201d \u201cGOLD FLAKE Ultima,\u201d \u201cGOLD FLAKE Century,\u201d and \u201cGOLD FLAKE Super Star.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The petitioner claims that the \u201cGOLD FLAKE\u201d mark and its associated trade dress, including the red and gold color combination, device marks, and packaging format, have become distinctive identifiers of its products.<\/p>\n<p>In late 2024, ITC discovered the marketing and sale of cigarettes under the brand \u201cIJM GOLD STAG\u201d by the defendants. The packaging of \u201cGOLD STAG\u201d cigarettes bore a striking resemblance to that of \u201cGOLD FLAKE,\u201d employing similar colors, layout, typography, and even similar roundel devices. ITC contended that the use of the word \u201cGOLD\u201d and the replication of packaging elements by the defendants constituted infringement of their registered trademarks and copyright, passing off, and intentional counterfeiting.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Upon discovery of the infringing activity, ITC filed the suit on 28 January 2025 under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The High Court initially passed an ad-interim order on 6 February 2025 and appointed Special Officers for site inspections.<\/p>\n<p>The defendants filed applications under GA-COM\/2\/2025 for vacating the interim injunction, and under GA-COM\/4\/2025 for revocation of dispensation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act on the ground that pre-institution mediation was bypassed without just cause. All applications were heard analogously.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Legal_Issues\"><\/span>Legal Issues<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The primary legal issues before the court were whether the defendants&#8217; use of the mark \u201cGOLD STAG\u201d and its associated packaging infringed upon ITC\u2019s registered trademarks and copyrighted artistic work, and whether the plaintiff\u2019s claim of urgency justified bypassing the mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.<\/p>\n<p>Ancillary issues involved whether the use of the word \u201cGOLD\u201d could be monopolized and whether the defendants\u2019 registration of \u201cGOLD STAG\u201d provided them any protection against such infringement claims.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Discussion_on_Judgments\"><\/span>Discussion on Judgments<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>In support of its arguments, the plaintiff relied on multiple judicial precedents that recognized the distinctiveness of the \u201cGOLD FLAKE\u201d mark and the protection available under both trademark and copyright laws for packaging and trade dress.<\/p>\n<p>In <em>ITC Limited v. Golden Tobacco Limited<\/em>, 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 2437, the Madras High Court acknowledged the long-standing reputation of \u201cGOLD FLAKE\u201d and restrained the use of similar marks. Similarly, in <em>ITC Ltd. v. NTC Industries Ltd.<\/em>, 2015 (64) PTC 244 (Bom), the Bombay High Court granted injunctive relief to ITC against the use of deceptively similar marks by rival businesses.<\/p>\n<p>The Calcutta High Court itself had previously restrained parties from using variants like \u201cGOLD STEP,\u201d \u201cGOLD FROST,\u201d \u201cGOLD FLICKER,\u201d and \u201cGOLD VIMAL\u201d in various suits such as CS(COMM) No. 124\/2024 and CS(COMM) No. 60\/2024, recognizing the deceptive similarity and likelihood of confusion.<\/p>\n<p>The court also cited the landmark decision in <em>Parakh Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. v. Baroma Agro Product<\/em>, (2018) 16 SCC 632, which emphasized that claims of secondary meaning and exclusivity over common or descriptive terms require careful scrutiny.<\/p>\n<p>For assessing the maintainability of suit without pre-institution mediation, the court referred to <em>Patil Automation (P) Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers (P) Ltd.<\/em>, (2022) 10 SCC 1, and <em>Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi<\/em>, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1382.<\/p>\n<p>These decisions collectively held that mediation is mandatory unless the suit seeks urgent interim relief and the urgency is not falsely pleaded. The court emphasized that it is for the court, not the plaintiff, to determine the urgency\u2019s authenticity.<\/p>\n<p>On the procedural side, the court relied on <em>Autodesk Inc. v. A.V.T. Shankardass<\/em>, (2008) 105 DRJ 188, and <em>Time Warner Entertainment v. RPG Netcom<\/em>, 2007 (34) PTC 668 (Del), to uphold the procedural validity of executing search-and-seizure orders before formal service under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_and_Analysis\"><\/span>Reasoning and Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur held that the plaintiff made out a strong prima facie case for grant of interim relief. The court accepted that the plaintiff\u2019s mark \u201cGOLD FLAKE\u201d had acquired distinctiveness through continuous and extensive use over decades.<\/p>\n<p>While acknowledging that \u201cGOLD\u201d is a laudatory term, the court emphasized that the overall packaging, trade dress, and visual similarities could not be ignored. The red and gold color scheme, the use of similar roundel devices, and the layout of product elements gave the impugned product an appearance deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff\u2019s.<\/p>\n<p>The judge rejected the defendant\u2019s argument that ITC had no exclusive right over the word \u201cGOLD\u201d alone, stating that while \u201cGOLD\u201d per se may be descriptive or laudatory, its use in conjunction with deceptive packaging and overall presentation constituted actionable infringement and passing off.<\/p>\n<p>On the issue of bypassing Section 12A, the court held that ITC had pleaded sufficient urgency. There was no evidence that ITC had prior knowledge of the infringing acts before December 2024.<\/p>\n<p>The court also noted the complex corporate structure and concealed relationships among the defendants which justified ITC\u2019s prompt approach to court. The court distinguished this case from others where urgency was found to be a guise.<\/p>\n<p>Additionally, the court found the licensing agreements submitted by the defendants to be suspect, noting discrepancies in the documents and the absence of valid assignments or written authorizations as mandated under Sections 30 and 19 of the Copyright Act, 1957.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision\"><\/span>Final Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Calcutta High Court upheld the ad-interim injunction previously granted and allowed ITC\u2019s application for interim relief. It dismissed the applications by the defendants seeking to vacate the injunction and revoke the dispensation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.<\/p>\n<p>The court restrained the defendants from using the impugned mark \u201cGOLD STAG\u201d or any deceptively similar trade dress, packaging, or devices in relation to cigarettes. The court also noted that the acts of the defendants warranted further scrutiny at trial to examine claims of counterfeiting and trafficking.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Law_Settled_in_This_Case\"><\/span>Law Settled in This Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>This case reinforces the principle that even descriptive or laudatory components of a composite trademark may attain distinctiveness when used extensively over a long period, and such acquired distinctiveness can be protected under trademark and copyright laws.<\/p>\n<p>The judgment clarifies that trade dress and packaging play a crucial role in consumer perception and can independently ground claims of infringement and passing off.<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, the court reiterated that bypassing the requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act is permissible only when genuine urgency exists, and the courts are the ultimate arbiters of such urgency.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<p><b>Disclaimer:\u00a0<\/b>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.<\/p>\n<p><b>Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman<\/b>, IP Adjutor &#8211; Patent and Trademark Attorney<br \/>\nEmail: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>ITC Limited v. Pravin Kumar &amp; Ors. Case Number: IP-COM\/12\/2025 | Date of Order: 20 June 2025 | Court: High Court at Calcutta, Original Side (IPR Division) | Judge: Hon\u2019ble Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur Introduction This case presented before the Calcutta High Court is a comprehensive intellectual property dispute involving allegations of trademark infringement, copyright<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-6230","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6230","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6230"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6230\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6230"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6230"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6230"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}