The Calcutta High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging an interim injunction in a trademark and trade-dress dispute involving ITC Limited’s “Gold Flake” cigarette brand and the “IJM Gold Stag” mark.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya held that the suit was maintainable before the Calcutta High Court and that sufficient prima facie material existed to justify temporary protection against alleged infringement and passing off.
The judgment was delivered on September 18, 2026, in an appeal arising from an order of the Single Judge dated February 6, 2025.
Background
The dispute arose from a suit concerning alleged infringement of the “Gold Flake” trademark and trade dress, along with allegations of passing off through the use of “IJM Gold Stag” and its associated packaging.
The appellant challenged the interim injunction, arguing, among other things, that the alleged acts had occurred in Punjab and that the Calcutta High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. It was also argued that the “IJM Gold Stag” trademark was registered and that Sections 28(3) and 30(2)(e) of the Trade Marks Act restricted an infringement claim against another registered proprietor or permitted user.
The appellant further disputed the similarity between the competing products and contended that the common word “Gold” could not by itself establish a case of infringement or passing off.
The Division Bench rejected the jurisdictional challenge. It noted that the plaintiff had its registered head office in Kolkata and that the pleadings disclosed a part of the cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court.
The Bench also distinguished between Clauses 12 and 14 of the Letters Patent, observing that Clause 14 does not require prior leave before the Court can entertain a suit or grant interim protection.
The Court observed:
“A mere show cause would suffice under Clause 14, as opposed to a leave, followed by an order, that too for the purpose of trial of the suit and not to entertain or ‘receive’ it.”
The Bench further noted that the appellant had not raised the territorial-jurisdiction objection before the Single Judge and had not replied to the show-cause notice issued under Clause 14.
On the argument that a registered trademark could not be the basis of an infringement action, the Court examined Sections 28, 29, 30 and 124 of the Trade Marks Act.
The Bench held that the statutory provisions did not, at the interim stage, prevent the filing of the suit or the grant of interlocutory protection where the validity of the competing registration itself was disputed.
The Court found that the pleadings brought the matter within Section 124(1)(b), making the suit maintainable. It also noted that Section 124(5) permits interlocutory protection even in circumstances involving a disputed registration.
The Division Bench considered the competing marks and packaging and found sufficient similarity to sustain the interim injunction at this preliminary stage.
The Court stressed that it was not finally deciding the dispute after a full trial. Instead, the question was whether the plaintiff had established sufficiently arguable issues requiring temporary protection.
It held that the Single Judge had reached a plausible conclusion regarding the possibility of deception and confusion and that no legal or factual error warranting appellate interference had been established.
The High Court concluded that the appellant had failed to establish grounds for interference with the interim injunction.
The Court therefore dismissed TEMPAPO-IPD No. 6 of 2025, affirming the Single Judge’s judgment and order dated February 6, 2025. The connected application, GA-COM 2 of 2026, was disposed of, while OCOT No. 7 of 2025 was also dismissed. The Court directed that there would be no order as to costs.
Case Title: Pravin Kumar v. ITC Limited and Ors.
