Delhi High Court
Kent Ro System Limited vs Kent Air Eco Corporation Letd.Lp on 4 October, 2016
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 978/2015
% Judgment dated 4 th October, 2016
KENT RO SYSTEM LIMITED ..... Plaintiff
Through Mr. Dhruv Gautam, Advocate
versus
KENT AIR ECO CORPORATION LETD.LP ..... Defendant
Through Mr. Kapil Kher, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining
infringement of trademark, passing off, dilution of goodwill, unfair
competition, rendition of accounts of profits, delivery up, etc.
2. It may be noticed that summons in the suit and notice in the stay
application was issued on 9.2.2015, when an ex parte ad interim order
was granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Affidavit of admission/denial of documents has been filed by the
plaintiff, however, affidavit has been filed by the defendant.
3. As per the plaint, plaintiff no.1 company has been in the business of
manufacturing and selling mineral RO water purifier systems since the
year 1999, through its predecessors. The plaintiff no.1 carries out its
business activities exclusively under the well known trademark/name
KENT. Plaintiff no.2, which is a technocrat from IIT, Kanpur, has
founded the firm 'Kent RO Systems' in the year 1999 with the vision
CS(OS).978/2015 Page 1 of 4
of providing pure and healthy drinking water to Indian homes at
affordable price. Plaintiff no.2 has been granted a patent for 'house
hold RO based drinking water purifier having controlled natural
mineral contents in generated purified water", which is a revolutionary
technology. The plaintiffs products offer unique multi-purification
process of RO+UF+UV, which removes even dissolved impurities
apart from bacteria and viruses and its TDS controller retains the
essential natural minerals in the purified water. The plaintiff's no.1
growth has been phenomenal, which is evident from its annual
turnover, which has been extracted in para 12 of the plaint.
4. Further, as per the plaint, the trademark/ name KENT is a coind and
invented mark, which was first adopted in the year 1988 for
manufacturing and selling oil apparatus and was then subsequently
adopted for healthcare products including mineral RO water purifiers in
the year 1999. The plaintiffs have secured registrations under the Trade
Marks Act, 1999, for exclusive use of the trademark KENT and for
other composite marks including the word 'KENT'. Details of
registration with regard to trademarks have been extracted in para13 of
the plaint. Besides, the plaintiffs have some other applications pending
registration for the trade name/mark KENT, which are stated to be at an
advance stage of registration. The plaintiffs have also successfully
obtained registrations with regard to trade name/mark KENT in other
countries. The plaintiffs have made substantial investments in market
research, development of new technology, advertising and promotion
of its unique and patented mineral water purifier under the trademark
KENT. The plaintiffs have extracted details with regard to annual sales
and amounts incurred in advertisement at para 19 of the plaint.
5. According to the plaintiff, the defendant are also trading under the
CS(OS).978/2015 Page 2 of 4
infringing trademark KENT AIR ECO CORPORATION LTD. LP and
inter alia, manufacturing, retailing and providing identical and/or allied
and cognate products and services, namely, water purifiers and coolers,
water dispensers, etc., under the infringing trade name. It is alleged
that the infringing domain name is identical/deceptively similar to the
plaintiffs' registered domain names, www.kent.co.in. The defendant
with a mala fide intention is using the plaintiffs' well known trade mark
KENT. The adoption and user of the infringing trade name and the
domain name by the defendants constitutes violation of statutory rights
of the plaintiffs in the mark KENT. The defendants are stated to be
fraudulently enticing the customers of the plaintiffs by selling its
products under the infringing trade name, mark KENT of the plaintiff
6. Today, learned counsel for the parties submit that the parties have
arrived at an amicable settlement. Counsel for the defendant submits
that the defendant has no objection if the present suit is decreed, as per
the prayer clause of the plaint, provided that the plaintiffs give up the
claim for damages and claim only symbolic damages. Counsel further
submits that the defendant has discontinued the use of the impugned
trademark and has also destroyed all the blocks, dies, printed material,
hoardings, boards, etc.
7. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs agrees to the same and submits that
the plaintiff is willing to give up relief of rendition of accounts.
8. Having regard to the fact that the parties have arrived at an amicable
settlement and the defendant has discontinued the use of the impugned
trademark and also destroyed all the blocks, dies, printed material,
hoardings, boards, etc., present suit stands decreed in favour of the
plaintiffs and against the defendant in terms of paras 45(i) to (iii) of the
plaint.
CS(OS).978/2015 Page 3 of 4
9. The defendant shall pay Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiffs towards symbolic
damages on or before 10.09.2016 as agreed.. Let a decree sheet be
drawn up accordingly.
10. Since the matter has been resolved through the mediation of the Court,
the plaintiff is entitled to refund of court fee under Section 16A of the
Court Fees Act.
I.A. 2807/2015.
11. The interim order dated 9.2.2015 stands confirmed in view of above.
12. Application stands disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J
OCTOBER 04, 2016
P
..
