Calcutta High Court
R A A Arsalan Enterprise Private Limited vs Swiggy Limited And Ors on 30 July, 2025
Author: Ravi Krishan Kapur
Bench: Ravi Krishan Kapur
OIP-139
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORIGINAL SIDE
(Intellectual Property Rights Division)
IP-COM/37/2024
IA NO: GA-COM/1/2024, GA-COM/4/2025
R A A ARSALAN ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED
VS
SWIGGY LIMITED AND ORS
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR
Date : 30th July, 2025.
Appearance:
Mr. Sayan Roy Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr. Aayush Sinha, Adv.
Ms. Mallika Bothra, Adv.
...for petitioner.
The Court: This is a suit for infringement and has been heard on numerous occasions.
It is submitted on behalf of plaintiff that the plaintiff is inter alia engaged in the business of running Mughlai Restaurants in Kolkata and is carrying on business under the trade name Arsalan. The plaintiff has different outlets all over West Bengal and has been extensively conducting business under the above name. The plaintiff also claims to have incurred substantial expenses by way of advertisement and has impressive sale figure. The plaintiff is also enjoying protection by way of trademark registration under the Trademarks Act, 1999 insofar as the device and word mark "Arsalan" is concerned.
In this suit which is in the nature of a John Doe action, the plaintiff claims protective reliefs against the defendants who are carrying on similar business and infringing the plaintiff's Trademark Arsalan by using trade names such as "NEW ARSALAN BIRYANI HOUSE", "A1 ARSALAN BIRYANI", "HAJI 2 ARSALAN BIRYANI", "KOLKATA ARSALAN BIRYANI", "NEW ARSALAN BIRYANI PALACE", "NEW BELA ARSALAN BIRYANI HOUSE", "A1 ARSALAN BIRYANI HOUSE", "NEW ARSALAN BIRYANI".
In this background, the plaintiff submits that there has been substantial dilution of their mark and the plaintiff is entitled to protective reliefs.
In this suit, by an interim order dated 5th October 2024, the defendant nos. 1 to 14 were restrained from using or advertising, directly or indirectly any mark which includes the words "Arsalan" for services identical or allied to the services covered by classes 43 of the classification of goods and services for trademark purposes except the trademark of the plaintiff "Arsalan".
The said order has been extended and is continuing from time to time. It is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that during the interregnum the plaintiff has settled with the defendant no. 2. A copy of the Terms of Settlement duly filed and signed in Court be kept with the records. The Terms of Settlement have been signed by both the parties and their respective Advocates. In view of the above, let there be a decree in terms of the Terms of Settlement. The suit stands decreed of insofar as the defendant no. 2 is concerned in terms of the Terms of Settlement.
Insofar as the remaining defendants are concerned, during the pendency of the suit, the names of the defendant nos. 4, 5, 6 and 11 had been deleted. Due to compliance with the interim order, insofar as remaining defendants are concerned, there is no objection on their behalf. In fact, they have stopped appearing in these proceedings.3
In such circumstance, the interim order stands confirmed insofar as the defendant nos.3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 are concerned. Let there be a decree in terms of the interim order dated 5th October, 2025 insofar as the defendant nos.3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14.
The defendant no. 1 is also bound by the undertaking furnished dated 19 December 2024.
With the above directions, IP-COM 37 of 2024 stands disposed of.
The remaining interlocutory applications being GA-COM/1/2024 and GA-COM/4/ 2025 stand disposed of as infructuous.
(RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.) SK.