Itc Limited vs Gold Step Tobacco Private Limited And ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1970 Cal/2

Calcutta High Court

Itc Limited vs Gold Step Tobacco Private Limited And ... on 17 March, 2026

Author: Arindam Mukherjee

Bench: Arindam Mukherjee

OIPD-1

                                  ORDER SHEET

                       IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                   INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS DIVISION
                                ORIGINAL SIDE

                               IP-COM/30/2024
                    IA NO: GA-COM/1/2024, GA-COM/2/2024

                               ITC LIMITED
                                    VS
                GOLD STEP TOBACCO PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS

BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE

Date: 17th March, 2026

Appearance:

Mr. S. N. Mookerjee, Sr, Adv.

Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Sarathi Dasgupta, Adv.

Mr. Naman Chowdhury, Adv.

Mr. Bhavesh Garodia, Adv.

Mr. Viraj Gupta, Adv.

Mr. K. K. Pandey, Adv.

Mr. Manosij Mukherjee, Adv.

Mr. Dipro Dawn, Adv.

Ms. Sayani De, Adv.

Ms. Manika Bothra, Adv.

...for the plaintiff

Ms. Susrea Mitra, Adv.

Mr. Chunky Agarwal, Adv.

Mr. Akshay Kumar Jain Sukhani, Adv.

Ms. Simran Sureka, Adv.

...for the defendant no.20

The Court: Two affidavits of service filed in the Court today by the

plaintiff are taken on record. On a perusal of the affidavits it appears that

except defendant nos. 14 to 18 all other defendants have been informed that

the matter will be taken up for consideration today (17th March, 2026).

Except defendant no. 20, none of the other defendants appears today.

In a suit for infringement of a registered mark of the plaintiff, passing

off as also infringement of the plaintiff's copy right, this application inter alia

for injunction was made by the plaintiff. In this application initially on 27th

September, 2024 an order of injunction was passed and a special officer was

directed to conduct search and seizure with regard to the goods infringing

the mark and copy right of the plaintiff. The special officer seized the goods

which initially appeared to be the godown of the defendant no. 7 and kept

and preserved them under his custody by fixing a pad lock at the said

godown. The possession of the receiver needless to say is that of the Court

through its officer who is in the instant case with the nomenclature "Special

Officer".

The three reports filed by the learned Special Officer and the orders

passed from time to time after considering such reports clearly demonstrate

that the possession of the Court through the receiver was interfered with.

The interference of the custody of the Court as recorded by the learned

special officer and prima facie accepted by the Court is through the added

defendant no. 20 who had firstly claimed to be a licensee of a portion of the

godown which was identified as that of the defendant no. 7. In some places

the defendant no. 20 has claimed to be otherwise entitled to use and enjoy

the said godown thereby meaning that the entire godown is under his

possession. It also appears that prior to the custody of the seized goods were

interfered with, the defendant no. 7 had given an undertaking to destroy the

infringing goods. Although, the defendant no. 20 has contended that he has

restored the possession through the Special Officer but the fact remains that

he has interfered with the custody of the goods which has serious

consequences. Even subsequent restoration of the possession or custody

does not absolve the party who had interfered with the possession or wipes

out his fault.

The plaintiff has concluded his submissions. The defendant no. 20

has resumed submission and has substantially proceeded with the same.

Learned Counsel for the defendant no. 20, however, seeks an

adjournment to enable her to check the applicable provision of law in the

facts of the case and take necessary instruction.

The matter is adjourned and shall appear on 31st March, 2026.

(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.)

S.Mandi