Law firm name not family property: Calcutta HC bars Somabrata Mandal from claiming connection with Fox & Mandal

The Calcutta High Court on Monday perpetually restrained Somabrata Mandal and his law firm from holding themselves out as being associated with the 130-year-old law firm Fox & Mandal, or from using the marks "Fox & Mandal," "Fox and Mandal," and "F&M."

Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur passed a summary judgment on the issue, on a suit filed by Fox & Mandal against Somabrata Mandal and his law firm, “Fox Mandal.”

“This is a fit case for summary judgment and the prayer for a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant nos. 1 (Somabrata) and 2 (Fox Mandal), their men, servants, agents and assigns and other partners from holding themselves out in any manner whatsoever as being associated with the plaintiff no. 1 firm (Fox and Mandal) or the plaintiff no. 2 (LLP set up by Fox and Mandal), or claiming any legacy in the year of establishment of the plaintiff no. 1, i.e., 1896, or passing off their firm or their legal services as that of the plaintiff no. 1 or the plaintiff no. 2, and also from using the marks 'Fox & Mandal', 'Fox and Mandal' and 'F&M', is granted,” the Court ruled. 

The case concerned the goodwill and reputation associated with the law firm Fox and Mandal/ Fox & Mandal. The firm was set up in 1896 as a partnership between an English attorney named John Kerr Fox and an Indian attorney named Gokul Chandra Mandal. 

The Court noted that it was perhaps the only example of an Indo-British joint venture in the legal profession that has had continuous existence for over 125 years. 

Fox died in 1922, following which the firm was reconstituted several times. GC Mandal died in 1930. His son, Dinabhandhu Mandal, was among those who eventually became partners of the firm.

In 1984, a new partnership firm offering legal services, named Fox Mandal, was set up by the-then partners of Fox and Mandal, including Dinabhandhu Mandal. 

Dinabhandhu’s son Somabrata Mandal also became part of this new firm. The Court, however, highlighted that Somabrata Mandal was never part of the firm set up in 1896. 

Dinabandhu Mandal died in June 2020, following which disputes emerged over connections claimed by the firm established in 1984 to Fox and Mandal.

Fox and Mandal objected to this state of affairs, arguing that it amounted to giving a distorted impression that Somabrata Mandal’s firm was associated with the law firm that was set up in 1896. 

Fox and Mandal eventually filed a suit against Somabrata Mandal and Fox Mandal. In November 2022, the Calcutta High Court passed an interim order restraining Somabrata Mandal and his law firm from using the "Fox and Mandal" name or claiming any connection with it. Appeals against this interim ruling were dismissed as well. 

The High Court has now made this injunction absolute in its final ruling. 

The Court rejected arguments that “Fox and Mandal” was a family mark, the use of which cannot be denied to Somabrata Mandal, since he was one of the heirs of GC Mandal (co-founder of Fox and Mandal) and Dinabhandhu Mandal (a partner of Fox and Mandal).

"The entire case of shared goodwill is illusory, sham and pure myth. The mark ‘Fox and Mandal’ is an asset of the plaintiff firm and was never an asset or property of any individual partner. The goodwill and reputation always remained with the firm … It is only the firm which has earned any reputation or goodwill and the efforts of the individual members of the firm over the century are inconsequential … There is also no merit in the contention that the mark ‘Fox & Mandal’ is a family mark. The firm is a separate juristic legal entity and there is nothing which the defendants have been able to demonstrate that the mark has ever been treated as a family mark,” the Court ruled. 

The Court observed that viewing “Fox and Mandal” as a family mark could lead to absurd consequences as well.

“Admittedly, Mr. John Kerr Fox, who was one of the founding partners of ‘Fox & Mandal’, was a total stranger to the Mandal family. In fact, it would be absurd to suggest that each and every member of the Mandal family even remotely connected with G. C. Mandal would be entitled to a right in the name ‘Fox & Mandal’. This would lead to an irrational result of conferring rights upon the innumerable descendants of G. C. Mandal, including those who are wholly unconnected with the firm.”

It held that once Somabrata Mandal consciously chose not to be part of Fox and Mandal, he could not claim any rights to its name or goodwill merely because he is related to the firm’s co-founder and former partner. 

“It is true that nobody can deny the right of the defendant no. 1’s (Somabrata Mandal) claim to be the great grandson of Late Gokul Chandra Mandal or one of the heirs of Late Dinabandhu Mandal, but that is wholly different from claiming any entitlement in the assets and marks of the firm… The defendant no. 1 has consciously and of his own volition always remained out of the plaintiff no. 1 firm and is for all purposes a stranger to the firm. This is the magic with legal personalities. The partnership remains. Everything else is history and counts for little in these cold Commercial Courts,” the Court said. 

The Court emphasised that there can be only one mark, one source and one proprietor for the Fox and Mandal name. 

The Court also found that the defendants (Somabrata Mandal and his law firm) had intentionally and mischievously claimed an association with Fox and Mandal.

The Court further ruled that it was a fit case to give a summary judgment, instead of conducting a full-fledged trial with oral evidence.

"The defences raised are sham and incapable of succeeding. In such circumstances, there is no reason as to why the claim should not be disposed of without recording oral evidence," the Court held.

Before parting with the case, the Court also criticised the defendants for not obeying its earlier interim order not to use or claim a connection with the Fox and Mandal name. 

“The defendant nos. 1 and 2 have continued to wrongfully trace their history to that of the firm …Examples are by showing an old clock which is displayed on their website and was used by the firm since 1896. Then again, by tracing or describing themselves as India’s original and oldest full-service law firm. Such acts, other than being in deliberate violation of restraint orders, amount to a misrepresentation and deception to the public at large," the Court held.

Senior Advocate SN Mookherjee along with advocates Soumya Roy Chowdhury, Paritosh Sinha, Deepti Priya and S Khanun appeared for Fox and Mandal.

Senior Advocate Dhiraj Kumar Trivedi along with advocates Indranil Munshi appeared for Somabrata Mandal and his firm.

[Read Judgment]