The Delhi High Court upheld an interim order restraining Kent RO Systems Limited from selling fans under the “Kent” trademark, ruling Kent Cables showed prior use of the mark for fans and had established a prima facie case.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has recently upheld an interim order preventing Kent RO Systems Limited from selling fans under the trademark “KENT”. A Division Bench comprised of Justices Navin Chawla and Madhu Jain found that Kent Cables demonstrated a prima facie case of prior use of the Kent mark for fans, asserting that Kent RO cannot claim rights to it now.
The Court stated,
“While we are mindful of the fact that not allowing the appellants to launch their fans with the mark in which they have otherwise acquired substantial goodwill for other products, may cause prejudice to them, it is all of their own doing,”
ALSO READ: Trademark Battle: Court Refuses Injunction Against Anthropic PBC, Issues Summons
Kent RO Systems argued that it adopted the mark “KENT” in 1988 for oil meters and later expanded its use to water purifiers, air purifiers, and other home appliances, claiming substantial goodwill due to significant sales and marketing efforts.
In contrast, Kent Cables asserted that it adopted the mark earlier, in 1984, for insulated wires, cables, and electrical components, obtaining trademark registration in 1986. The company later broadened its offerings to include electrical appliances and claimed to have been selling fans under the “KENT” mark since around 2009.
The dispute intensified in 2022 when Kent RO accused Kent Cables of moving into electrical and kitchen appliances using the “KENT” mark. Kent RO filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent Kent Cables from using the mark for these products, while Kent Cables countersued to stop Kent RO from launching fans under the same name.
In May 2023, a single-judge of the High Court found a prima facie case in favor of Kent Cables and issued an order restraining Kent RO from manufacturing or selling fans under the “KENT” mark.
ALSO READ: Trademark Win for Delhivery: Delhi HC Grants Interim Relief in Trademark & Copyright Case
Upon appeal, the Division Bench affirmed that Kent Cables was the original user of the mark, noting that Kent Cables had provided documents demonstrating their use of the mark for fans since at least 2009, including invoices, government approvals, certifications, and advertisements.
Additionally, the Bench recognized that fans represent a natural extension of Kent Cables’ electrical business.
The Court remarked,
“Appliances like fans can be said to be a natural progression of business for the respondents from their original business of electric wires and cables,”
The Court dismissed Kent RO’s assertion that fans are allied goods to water purifiers, explaining that classification within the same trademark class does not determine the similarity of goods.
The Bench noted,
“Classification is only for purposes of grant of registration and cannot determine similarity of goods,”
Furthermore, the Court criticized Kent RO for not obtaining trademark registration for fans. It also took into account Kent RO’s delay in seeking legal remedy. Kent RO had previously opposed Kent Cables’ trademark application for fans in 2007 and issued a cease-and-desist notice in 2011, but did not file a lawsuit until 2022, which the Court interpreted as acquiescence.
The Bench stated,
“Having opposed the registration and issued a notice, the appellants could not keep quiet and allow the respondents to grow,”
The Court concluded that Kent Cables had established prior use of the mark for fans, which can invalidate a later infringement claim under the Trade Marks Act, thus upholding the restriction on Kent RO from selling fans under the “KENT” mark.
The Bench clarified that its findings are currently only prima facie and will not influence the final trial outcome.
Kent RO was represented by Senior Advocate Chander M Lall, along with advocates Ankur Sangal, Ankit Arvind, Shashwat Rakshit, Amrit Sharma, and Annanya Mehan from Khaitan & Co. Kent Cables was represented by Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta and advocates Sandeep Das, Ninad Dogra, and Om Shelat.
Case Title: Kent RO Systems Vs Kent Cables.
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE
