Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Bansal, J.
Kent Ro System Ltd. & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Gattubhai & Ors. - Respondents
CS(COMM) 426/2019 & IA No. 5433/2021 (u/O.XXXIX R.2A of the CPC);
Decided On : 23-03-2022
SUPPRESSION - TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT - TRADEMARK ACT 1999, SECTION 28, 29 - The court found that the plaintiffs had suppressed and concealed material facts regarding their prior knowledge of the defendants' use of the mark 'KENT' in relation to kitchen appliances. The court held that the ex parte ad-interim injunction obtained by the plaintiffs was based on gross suppression and concealment of relevant facts, and therefore, vacated the injunction. The court also found that the plaintiffs had acquiesced to the use of the mark 'KENT' by the defendants and were estopped from claiming otherwise. The defendants were found to be the registered owners of the mark 'KENT' and were entitled to use it, and the plaintiffs had abandoned the challenge to the validity of the defendants' mark. The court also granted an injunction restraining the defendants from using the colour scheme of white and blue, similar to that used by the plaintiffs.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for infringement of their marks by the defendants and for passing off. The defendants contended that the plaintiffs had suppressed and concealed material facts regarding their prior knowledge of the defendants' use of the mark 'KENT' in relation to kitchen appliances. The court found that the plaintiffs had suppressed and concealed relevant facts and vacated the ex parte ad-interim injunction obtained by the plaintiffs. The court also found that the plaintiffs had acquiesced to the use of the mark 'KENT' by the defendants and were estopped from claiming otherwise. The defendants were found to be the registered owners of the mark 'KENT' and were entitled to use it, and the plaintiffs had abandoned the challenge to the validity of the defendants' mark. The court also granted an injunction restraining the defendants from using the colour scheme of white and blue, similar to that used by the plaintiffs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs had suppressed and concealed material facts regarding their prior knowledge of the defendants' use of the mark 'KENT' in relation to kitchen appliances. The court held that the ex parte ad-interim injunction obtained by the plaintiffs was based on gross suppression and concealment of relevant facts, and therefore, vacated the injunction. The court also found that the plaintiffs had acquiesced to the use of the mark 'KENT' by the defendants and were estopped from claiming otherwise. The defendants were found to be the registered owners of the mark 'KENT' and were entitled to use it, and the plaintiffs had abandoned the challenge to the validity of the defendants' mark. The court also granted an injunction restraining the defendants from using the colour scheme of white and blue, similar to that used by the plaintiffs.
Issues: The main issues in the case were suppression and concealment of material facts by the plaintiffs, acquiescence to the use of the mark 'KENT' by the defendants, the validity of the defendants' mark, and the entitlement of the defendants to use the mark 'KENT'.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiffs had suppressed and concealed material facts regarding their prior knowledge of the defendants' use of the mark 'KENT' in relation to kitchen appliances. The court also found that the plaintiffs had acquiesced to the use of the mark 'KENT' by the defendants and were estopped from claiming otherwise. The defendants were found to be the registered owners of the mark 'KENT' and were entitled to use it, and the plaintiffs had abandoned the challenge to the validity of the defendants' mark. The court also granted an injunction restraining the defendants from using the colour scheme of white and blue, similar to that used by the plaintiffs.
Final Decision: The court vacated the ex parte ad-interim injunction obtained by the plaintiffs and granted an injunction restraining the defendants from using the colour scheme of white and blue, similar to that used by the plaintiffs. The court also imposed costs of INR 2,00,000 on the plaintiffs.
JUDGMENT
Amit Bansal, J. - IA No.1953/2022 (for directions)
1. In light of the judgment passed today in IA No. 10997/2019 and IA No. 704/2020, the present application stands disposed of as satisfied.
IA No.10997/2019 (u/O.XXXIX R.1&2 of the CPC) & IA No. 704/2020 (of the defendants u/O.XXXIX R.4 of the CPC)
2. By the present order, I propose to dispose of the application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for grant of interim injunction and the application filed on behalf of the defendants under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC for vacation of ex parte ad-interim injunction granted by this Court vide order dated 13th August, 2019.
3. Vide order dated 13th August, 2019, this Court had passed an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising or in any manner dealing on product bearing a mark "KENT" or "KENT APPLIANCES" or variants thereof or any other mark or logo or trade name, which is deceptively similar to the trade mark of the plaintiffs.
4. The case set up by the plaintiff in the plaint is that:-
(i) The plaintiff no. 1 is Kent RO System Ltd. and the plaintiff no.2 is the Chairman and Managing Director of the plaintiff no.1.
(ii) The defendant no.1, Gattubhai Ashit Dagli, as per the website http://kentappliances.com & www.indiamart.com, is believed to own and control an enterprise, Kent Appliances. The defendant no.2, Ashit Jaswantrai Dagli, is also associated with the defendant no.1 in controlling Kent Appliances. The defendant no.2 and the defendant no.3, Himanshu Jaswantrai Dagli, carry on business under the name and style of "Shilpa Electricals" in respect of sale of electrical and home appliances.
(iii) The mark "KENT" was adopted by the plaintiffs in the year 1988 in respect of products relating to petroleum conservation.
(iv) In 1999, the plaintiffs started using the mark "KENT" in respect of its water purifier systems.
(v) Over time, the plaintiffs diversified into other products such as grinders, blenders and other kitchen appliances sold under the mark "KENT" and variants thereof.(vi) Besides holding the trade mark registration for the mark "KENT", the plaintiffs also hold the copyright registration in respect of its logo.
(vii) The trade mark "KENT" is registered in India in various classes, details of which trade mark registrations, in favour of the plaintiffs, are given in paragraph 15 of the plaint.
(viii) The plaintiffs have achieved impressive annual sales and spent huge amounts on advertisement and publicity in respect of the products bearing trade mark "KENT" from the year 2015-16 to 2017-18, as stated in paragraph 21 of the plaint.
(ix) Various celebrities have been the brand ambassadors of the plaintiff no.1, details of which brand ambassadors are provided in paragraph 23 of the plaint.
(x) The plaintiff no.1 has also been the sponsor of various sporting events and has won many awards in respect of its products.
(xi) The marks of the plaintiffs have been recognised as "well known trade marks" in various judicial orders, the details of which judicial orders are given in paragraph 27 of the plaint.
(xii) In and around March, 2019, the plaintiffs came to know of the defendants selling products such as thermo flasks and other home appliances under the identical mark of "KENT".
(xiii) The defendants have adopted the mark "KENT" in the same colour scheme of blue and white of the plaintiffs.
(xiv) The products sold by the defendants under the mark "KENT" are available on the website, http://kentappliances.com, and other third party websites.
(xv) Various oppositions have been filed by the defendants opposing the registration of the marks of the plaintiffs in Classes 7 and 21.
(xvi) Various registrations have also been granted in favour of the defendants in respect of the word mark "KENT" in Class 7 and Class 21 since the year 2004.
5. Based on the above averments in the plaint, the senior cou
Trademark infringement occurs when a registered mark's rights surpass an unregistered mark's claims, especially when confusion is likely.
The court established that the rights of the prior user of a trademark are superior to those of a subsequent user, emphasizing the elements of goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage in passing off c....
The court affirmed the registered trademark holder's rights against similar marks and clarified standards for proving prior use and confusion under trademark law.
A plaintiff seeking an injunction must disclose all material facts; failure to do so may preclude equitable relief even if a prior user claim is made.
Concealment of material facts while obtaining ex parte injunction disentitles the plaintiff from equitable relief of injunction.
Point of law: Registration of trademark shall, if valid, give to registered proprietor of trademark exclusive right to use of trademark in relation to goods or services in respect of which trademark ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
