CALCUTTA HC GRANTS INJUNCTION TO ‘CAPTAIN GOGO’ TRADEMARK OWNER AGAINST MULTIPLE INFRINGERS [Read Order]

Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has granted a comprehensive injunction in favor of Moondust Paper Pvt. Ltd., protecting its ‘Captain Gogo’ trademark against multiple entities selling deceptively similar smoking paper products.

Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur delivered the judgment on August 8, 2025, in a rolled-up action involving trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off, emphasizing the fraudulent nature of the defendants’ conduct.

The court addressed IP-COM/44/2024 filed by Moondust Paper Pvt. Ltd. against Vinay Shaw and 10 others, who were allegedly infringing the company’s well-established ‘Captain Gogo’ and ‘Gogo’ trademarks in the smoking accessories market.

Moondust Paper, engaged in manufacturing and trading smoker’s articles including cigarette paper booklets, matchboxes, cardboard filter tips, rolling paper booklets, and pre-rolled smoking cones, has been operating under the ‘Captain Gogo’ trademark since 2015. The court noted: “The mark has become synonymous with the products of the petitioner and is exclusively identifiable with the petitioner.”

The company operates both offline and online through its website www.captaingogo.com and claims substantial expenditure on advertisement along with impressive sales figures. The petitioner also holds registrations under both trademark law and the Copyright Act, 1957, for artistic work contained in labels and packaging.

The defendants were found to be selling identical products under deceptively similar names including ‘Gogo’, ‘Goga’, ‘Captain Coco’, ‘Go Three’, ‘Capital Coco’, ‘Super Go India’, and ‘Go N Go’. Justice Kapur observed: “In selling the impugned products, the respondents are acting in a fraudulent and dishonest manner. There is every attempt made to imitate not only the petitioner’s name but also the copyright registration.”

The court detailed extensive seizures conducted on May 16, 2024, and July 2, 2024, revealing the scale of infringement. From defendant Ranajoy Chaurasiya alone, authorities seized 80 boxes of ‘Capital Coco’ paper rolls and 160 boxes of ‘Go Three’ papers. Defendant Toufique Ahmed was found with 30 boxes of ‘Captain Gogo’ rolled papers, 20 boxes of ‘Captain Coco’, 50 boxes of ‘Super Go India’ pre-rolled cones, and 650 boxes of ‘Go Three’ papers.

Justice Kapur emphasized the likelihood of consumer confusion, particularly considering the target market. The court stated: “While examining such cases, what has to be kept in mind is the purchaser of such goods in India who may have absolutely no or very little knowledge of the English language and to whom different words with minor differences in spelling may sound phonetically similar.”

The court applied established precedents on passing off, citing Cadila Healthcare Limited v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited, focusing on whether misrepresentation by the defendants would likely cause ordinary consumers to confuse products due to similarity of marks and surrounding factors.

Referencing Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah, Justice Kapur reinforced fundamental business principles, noting that the law protects reputation and goodwill acquired over time: “Honesty and fair play are, and ought to be, the basic policies in the world of business.”

The court found that the defendants were operating in identical business channels and selling products in the same category as the plaintiff’s, creating “every possibility of confusion and disruption among the public.”

Despite being served, none of the defendants appeared before the court, even on the second call, leading to an ex parte decision in favor of the plaintiff.

Justice Kapur concluded that the plaintiff had demonstrated “a strong case on merits” and that “the balance of convenience and irreparable injury is also in favour of orders being passed.” The court granted comprehensive relief including injunctions against trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off.

Mr. Sayantan Basu, Senior Advocate, along with advocates Mr. Tanmoy Roy, Mr. Bhavesh Garodia, Mr. Abhishek Chakraborty, and Ms. A. Roy appeared for the plaintiff.

Case Title: Moondust Paper Pvt. Ltd. v. Vinay Shaw and Others

[Read Order]