Delhi High Court Upholds Injunction Against Kent RO, Cites Kent Cables’ Prior Use of ‘KENT’ Mark for Fans
Delhi High Court Upholds Injunction Against Kent RO, Cites Kent Cables’ Prior Use of ‘KENT’ Mark for Fans
Introduction
The Delhi High Court has upheld an interim injunction restraining Kent RO Systems Limited from manufacturing or selling fans under the trademark “KENT”, affirming a Single Judge’s order passed in favour of Kent Cables Private Limited.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain dismissed the appeals filed by Kent RO Systems and held that Kent Cables had demonstrated prior adoption of the mark for electrical goods and prima facie use of the mark for fans. The Court concluded that such prior use disentitled Kent RO from seeking injunctive relief at the interim stage.
Factual Background
The dispute concerns the use of the trademark “KENT” for electrical products, particularly fans. Kent Cables Private Limited claimed that it had adopted the mark for wires and cables as early as 1986 and had subsequently expanded its use to fans. According to Kent Cables, it had been engaged in the business of fans for more than fifteen years and had established goodwill in the mark for electrical goods. The company also pointed out that it had applied for registration of the trademark “KENT” for fans in 1998 on a proposed-to-be-used basis. Kent RO Systems Limited, known primarily for water purifiers, objected to the use of the mark by Kent Cables and sought to restrain the latter from using the trademark “KENT” for fans.
Procedural Background
The dispute resulted in cross-suits between the parties before the Delhi High Court. In the proceedings before the Single Judge, Kent RO sought an injunction restraining Kent Cables from using the “KENT” mark for fans. The Single Judge, however, granted interim relief in favour of Kent Cables by restraining Kent RO from manufacturing or selling fans under the mark “KENT” during the pendency of the suit. At the same time, the Court declined to restrain Kent Cables from continuing its use of the mark. Aggrieved by the order, Kent RO Systems filed appeals before the Division Bench challenging the discretionary order of the Single Judge.
Issues
1. Whether Kent RO Systems was entitled to an interim injunction restraining Kent Cables from using the trademark “KENT” for fans.
2. Whether the Single Judge’s order restraining Kent RO from using the mark for fans warranted interference in appellate jurisdiction.
Contentions of the Parties
Kent RO Systems Limited argued that it had long-standing rights in the trademark “KENT”, which it had adopted as early as 1988 for oil meters and subsequently for its well-known water purification products. It contended that the use of the identical mark by Kent Cables for fans amounted to infringement and was likely to cause confusion among consumers.
Kent Cables Private Limited, on the other hand, argued that it was the prior adopter of the mark for electrical goods. The company pointed out that it had adopted the mark for wires and cables in 1986 and had been using the mark for fans since at least 2009. It also argued that Kent RO had been aware of its use of the mark for fans since 2011 but had not taken timely legal action, thereby demonstrating delay and acquiescence.
Reasoning and Analysis
The Division Bench examined the evidence placed on record regarding the adoption and use of the trademark by both parties. The Court noted that Kent Cables had adopted the mark “KENT” for electrical goods in 1986 and had prima facie demonstrated use of the mark for fans since 2009. In contrast, although Kent RO had adopted the mark earlier for oil meters in 1988, it had not used the mark for fans despite being aware of Kent Cables’ use since at least 2011.
The Court also considered the fact that Kent Cables had applied for registration of the mark for fans in 1998, which was opposed by Kent RO in 2007. However, apart from issuing a cease-and-desist notice in 2011, Kent RO had not initiated any substantive legal action against the use of the mark for fans for several years. The Bench held that this delay, coupled with the prima facie evidence of prior use by Kent Cables for fans, weighed against granting interim relief to Kent RO. The Court therefore found no reason to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the Single Judge.
Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeals filed by Kent RO Systems Limited and upheld the interim injunction restraining it from manufacturing or selling fans under the trademark “KENT”. The Court affirmed the Single Judge’s order and allowed Kent Cables Private Limited to continue using the mark for fans pending the final adjudication of the suit.
In this case the plaintiff was represented by Senior Advocate Chander M. Lall with Advocates Ankur Sangal, Ankit Arvind, Shashwat Rakshit, Amrit Sharma and Annanya Mehan.
