Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up 15th April- 21st April 2024

NOMINAL INDEXANJANI PUTRA SENA v STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 87EMAMI LIMITED v HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 88Paschim Banga Cha Majoor Samity & Ors. v The State of West Bengal & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 89Ashadul Sekh and others v The State of West Bengal and other 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 90Prabir Kumar Mitra vs State of West Bengal & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 91Uphealth Holdings Inc v. Glocal Healthcare Systems Pvt Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 92Berger Paints India Ltd. Versus JSW Paints Pvt. Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 93Calcutta High Court Allows Ram Navami Procession In Howrah, Asks State To Requisition Central Forces If It Can't Manage CrowdCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 87Case: ANJANI PUTRA SENA v STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORSThe Calcutta High Court has allowed a plea by the Anjani Putra Sena to carry out its annual Ram Navami Yatra (procession) in Howrah on 17th April (Wednesday). A single bench of Justice Jay Sengupta allowed the procession whilst adding that there should not be any sloganeering, or hate speech and capped the number of attendees to 200. The Court further clarified that the State is expected to have the resources available to manage a gathering of 200 people and that in case it was facing difficulties in doing the same, it was free to requisition central forces in writing, by giving 24 hours' notice.Calcutta High Court Restrains HUL From Using 'Glow & Handsome' Trademark In Infringement Suit By EmamiCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 88Case: EMAMI LIMITED v HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITEDThe Calcutta High Court has restrained consumer goods giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) from using the 'Glow & Handsome' trademark to sell its men's care products following a suit by Emami Ltd. whose brand "Fair & Handsome" allegedly held the major market share.In 2020, HUL changed the name of its men's skin cream from “MEN'S FAIR & LOVELY” to “GLOW & HANDSOME.” Emami immediately challenged HUL's use of the mark “GLOW & HANDSOME” before the Calcutta High Court, on the basis that this constitutes infringement and passing off of Emami's well-known and reputed mark “FAIR AND HANDSOME.”In finally deciding the case, a single bench of Justice Ravi Kishan Kapur held:A conscious and deliberate decision by a competitor in adopting a leading, prominent and essential component of a trade rival while seeking to change the name of its existing brand is not something which can be disregarded. In choosing the word “Glow and Handsome”, there is also an element of taking unfair advantage of a leading, prominent and essential feature of the petitioner's mark which deceives or is likely to deceive. Nobody has any right to represent the goods of somebody else. In doing so, the rival takes a “free ride”. There is no line between permissible free riding and impermissible free riding. All “free riding” is unfair.Calcutta High Court Directs Govt To Finalise Minimum Wage Of Tea Plantation Workers Within 6 Weeks, Calls It A Statutory & Legal RightCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 89Case: Paschim Banga Cha Majoor Samity & Ors. v The State of West Bengal & Ors.The Calcutta High Court's circuit bench at Jalpaiguri has directed the West Bengal government to finalise the minimum wage of tea plantation workers within 6 weeks, under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. This comes after a coordinate bench had upheld the interim hike in wages for the workers and directed the state to finalise a minimum wage within 6 months. Upon the expiry of this period, the petitioners represented by Senior Advocate Dr S Muralidhar approached the Court stating that the State had not complied with the Coordinate bench's direction for setting a minimum wage. Upon hearing these submissions, a single bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy held:To receive minimum wages is a statutory and legal right under the Minimum Wages Act. Even an individual if thinks fit that he is deprived of such legal right can maintain a writ petition. [State] shall decide the issue in the light of the observation made by the co-ordinate bench In the matter of: Goodricke Group Limited & Ors. (Supra) as quoted above, by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law. The entire exercise as directed above shall be carried out and completed by the respondent No. 2 positively within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order.Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Notice Preventing Forest Dwellers From Entering Forest Lands; Restrains Further Action Till Their Rights Are DecidedCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 90Case: Ashadul Sekh and others v The State of West Bengal and otherThe Calcutta High Court has set aside a notice by the Range Forest Officer, Krishnanagar which prevented forest dwellers from entering into forest land for the purpose of staying or cultivating.In setting aside the notice upon observing that the interests of the forest dwellers had not been accounted for, a single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya held that:No process of recognition rights as envisaged ...

Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up 15th April- 21st April 2024

Srinjoy Das