Vakil Help Desk News: the Calcutta High Court has declined interim relief in a counterfeit-cigarettes trademark dispute, faulting the brand owner's unexplained delay and its decision to approach the police instead of promptly moving the commercial court.
Vakil Help Desk News, IPR. A brand owner who wants urgent protection must act quickly and in the right forum. The Calcutta High Court underlined this while dismissing an appeal in ITC Limited v. SMM Tobacco & Ors.
The dispute
The brand owner alleged that counterfeit cigarettes were being sold under its registered marks. It sought urgent interim relief and an exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
What the Court held
- There was an unexplained delay in approaching the civil court, which weakened the claim of urgency needed to bypass pre-institution mediation.
- Having first taken the matter to the police rather than promptly seeking civil remedies told against the plea for urgent interim relief.
- The appeal was dismissed, leaving the brand owner to pursue the suit through the regular route.
Why it matters
Urgency is judged by conduct. Sitting on a known infringement, or choosing the wrong forum first, can cost a rights-holder the very interim relief it needs — and can mean completing mediation before the suit can go ahead.
What this means for you
If you discover counterfeiting or infringement, move fast and through the right door: a prompt civil action supports a plea for urgent interim relief and exemption from Section 12A mediation, while delay undercuts it. A criminal complaint and a civil suit serve different purposes — plan both together from the start. We assess the right strategy and act quickly to protect your brand.