Delhi High Court Grants Permanent Injunction Against Sale of Water Purifiers Infringing ‘KENT’ Trademark and Design

Delhi High Court Grants Permanent Injunction Against Sale of Water Purifiers Infringing ‘KENT’ Trademark and Design

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of Kent RO Systems Ltd., restraining multiple sellers from manufacturing, advertising, or selling water purifiers that infringe the well-known “KENT” trademark and its registered design. The Court held that the impugned products were being sold through identical trade channels and were likely to cause consumer confusion, particularly as the defendants chose not to contest the proceedings.

Factual Background

The suit was instituted by Kent RO Systems Ltd. against Kanchan Singh and other sellers offering allegedly infringing water purifiers on the IndiaMart platform.

The plaintiffs contended that the defendants were selling water purifiers using the mark “KENT” and deceptively similar product names such as “AQUA GRAND+”, allegedly imitating the plaintiffs’ “KENT GRAND+ ZWW” line. In addition to trademark infringement, the plaintiffs relied upon registered Design No. 312406, which protects the aesthetic configuration and visual appearance of their water purifiers.

Kent asserted that it has used the “KENT” mark since 1988, and through sustained advertising, extensive sales, and celebrity endorsements, the mark had acquired immense goodwill and had already been recognized as a well-known trademark.

Procedural Background

The matter came up before Justice Jyoti Singh, who noted that despite service, the defendants failed to appear, file written statements, or contest the proceedings. The Court therefore proceeded ex parte, and the suit was considered on the basis of the material placed on record by the plaintiffs.

Issues

1. Whether the defendants’ use of “KENT” and similar marks for identical water purifiers constituted trademark infringement.

2. Whether the defendants’ products infringed Kent’s registered design protecting the purifier configuration.

3. Whether the well-known status of “KENT” entitled it to a heightened degree of protection.

Contentions of Parties

The plaintiffs, Kent RO Systems Ltd., contended that the defendants had copied both their trademark and product configuration, including the use of deceptively similar marks and visually similar purifier designs.

They argued that use of the name “AQUA GRAND+” was calculated to ride upon the reputation of “KENT GRAND+ ZWW”, especially since the products were identical and sold through the same online trade channels.

The defendants did not appear, and consequently no defence was put forth.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Court emphasized that “KENT” has already been declared a well-known trademark, and therefore enjoys a high degree of statutory and judicial protection.

Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the plaintiffs hold valid registrations in the “KENT” word mark and formative marks, and that under Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, they are entitled to exclusive use and to restrain third-party infringement.

In comparison, the Court found that the defendants’ marks were being used for identical products moving through identical trade channels, making the possibility of confusion among consumers highly likely.

The Court further noted that the defendants had copied the plaintiffs’ registered design configuration, thereby infringing the visual features protected under the Designs Act.

A significant factor was the defendants’ failure to participate in the proceedings despite service. The Court held that in such circumstances, there was “no real prospect of defending the claims of the Plaintiffs”, and the documentary evidence clearly established copying. The Bench therefore concluded that use of the impugned marks and product design for identical goods squarely fell within Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act and also amounted to design infringement.

Decision

The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favour of Kent RO Systems Ltd. and granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the “KENT” mark, deceptively similar marks, and infringing purifier configurations. The defendants were barred from manufacturing, advertising, offering for sale, or selling such infringing water purifiers.

In this case the appellant was represented by Advocates Kumar Chitranshu and Ansh Sharma.