The Delhi High Court has upheld an interim ban on Acqualite, preventing it from manufacturing slippers deceptively similar to Relaxo’s Hawai brand. The ruling reinforces protection of Relaxo’s trademark and brand identity.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday confirmed an earlier interim order that had stopped Aqualite from making slippers that were said to be copies of Relaxo’s registered Hawai slipper designs.
A Division Bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla said that the Single Judge was right in granting an interim injunction against Aqualite in 2021, and that Aqualite’s appeal had no substance.
The Court noted that
“Aqualite’s footwear is identical, in shape and configuration, to the footwear forming subject matter of the suit designs, and the registration of the suit designs is not, prima facie, liable to cancellation under Section 19 of the Designs Act, the learned Single Judge has, to our view, correctly injuncted Aqualite from manufacturing or dealing in footwear which replicates the suit designs or is deceptively similar, in design, thereto.”
Because of this finding, the Court dismissed Aqualite’s appeal.
The original injunction was passed in October 2021 by the Single Judge, who had restrained Aqualite from producing slippers similar to Relaxo’s “Bahamas” series, especially models BHG 136 and BHG 137.
Relaxo’s designs, registered in 2019, had a unique side look marked by special “crenellation-like” vertical ridges.
Aqualite argued before the High Court that these ridges were not new at all and that at least seven earlier designs from different manufacturers had used similar patterns.
The company also complained that the injunction should not have been granted because ‘summons’ in the case were issued only after the Court had finished hearing and reserved the injunction order.
The Division Bench, however, conducted its own comparison and looked closely at Relaxo’s side-ridge pattern along with the older designs. It found that Relaxo’s design had a visually different and unique appearance.
The Bench further explained that the footwear industry generally has limited space for new creativity because shoes and slippers must fit the natural shape of the human foot, which is itself an unusual and uneven shape.
The Court observed,
“The human foot is, howsoever one may view it, a peculiarly shaped body part. It is narrow at one end and wide at the other, with five toes, each of which, in itself, is individually and peculiarly contoured. Footwear, therefore, by its very nature, is an item in respect of which there is very limited scope of novelty. In order to be utilitarian, footwear has to correspond to the shape of the foot, and yet not be ungainly in appearance.”
After reviewing the designs and the law, the Division Bench held that Relaxo’s design had enough uniqueness to be protected under the Designs Act.
It therefore found no reason to interfere with the Single Judge’s interim injunction and allowed it to continue.
With this ruling, Aqualite remains barred from making or selling any slipper design that copies or looks deceptively similar to Relaxo’s registered designs.
Case Title:
Acqualite Industries Private Ltd v Relaxo Footwears Limited.
