Calcutta HC Allows Litigants To File Interim Applications With Plaints In Panama Blade Trademark Appeal

The appellant filed a commercial suit alleging infringement and passing off of its registered “PANAMA” trademark in relation to shaving blades. It claimed use of the mark since 1951 and alleged that it discovered the respondents’ competing products in the market in the second week of September 2026; the respondents asserted that they had been selling products under the mark since January 2026.

The suit was filed on 9 October 2026, and the appellant sought urgent interim relief without pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The Single Judge declined to dispense with mediation, directed return of the plaint and did not consider the appellant’s requests for leave under Clause 14 of the Letters Patent and Order II Rule 2 CPC. The appeal also raised the effect of an Office Order restricting the filing of interlocutory applications before presentation or admission of a plaint.

Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 makes pre-institution mediation mandatory, except where the suit genuinely contemplates urgent interim relief.

Applying Patil Automation Private Limited v. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited, Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, Dhanbad Fuels Private Limited v. Union of India and Novenco Building and Industry A/S v. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Limited, the Court stated that urgency is assessed from the standpoint of the plaintiff by reading the plaint and supporting documents as a whole; the court must guard against a merely pro forma urgency plea, but the eventual refusal of interim relief does not itself defeat dispensation.

For continuing intellectual-property infringement, urgency must be assessed in light of ongoing injury and the public interest in preventing deception; delay alone does not negate urgency.

The Court also held that a litigant may file an interim application together with the plaint, subject to any just objections being placed before the court.

The plaint alleged continuing infringement and passing off, supported by the appellant’s claim to longstanding use and registration of “PANAMA” and its account of discovering the respondents’ products in September 2026. Read from the appellant’s standpoint, those pleadings and documents disclosed a genuine need to seek urgent protection against ongoing injury and possible consumer deception; the dispute over whether the respondents had entered the market earlier was a factual issue for determination in the injunction proceedings, not a reason to refuse Section 12A dispensation at this stage.

The Court therefore found that mediation would not be required before the suit proceeded.

Separately, the Office Order’s restriction on simultaneous filing could impede access to urgent interim relief and was contrary to the consensus at the Bar; the Department could accept simultaneous filings while placing any just objections before the court.

The Court set aside the relevant restriction in the Office Order and directed the Department to permit interim applications to be filed with the plaint.

The respondents were directed to show cause why leave under Clause 14 of the Letters Patent should not be granted, and leave under Order II Rule 2 CPC was granted. The Court expressed no view on the merits of the injunction claim, leaving the parties’ contentions open.