Kent Ro Systems Limited & Anr. v. Bajrang Impex Private Limited

1. Mr. Rahul Vidhani, learned Counsel for the defendant, submits, at the very outset, on instructions, that the defendant is willing to suffer a decree in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c) in para 41 of the plaint, which reads thus:

2. Mr. Deepanshu Nagar, learned Counsel for the plaintiff, prays that, in the circumstances, the suit may be decreed in the aforesaid terms and that his client would not be pressing for costs and damages.

3. The plaint in the suit alleges infringement, by the defendant, of Design No.312406 held by the plaintiff in respect of water purifiers, as well as passing off, by the defendant, of their products as the products of the plaintiff.

4. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of water purifiers. The plaint alleges that, in July 2022, the plaintiff came across cabinets having a design similar to the plaintiff’s water purifiers, in which the plaintiff was proprietor of registered Design NO. 312406.

5. The plaint also avers that the plaintiff was aggrieved by the use, by the defendant, of a logo and name similar to that of the plaintiff. For the said purpose, a comparative depiction of the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s products, and of their respective logos, are provided in paras 22 and 27 of the plaint thus: Registered Design of Plaintiff Plaintiff's Product as per Registered Design Defendant's Product Design No:- 312406, Dated: 26.11.2018 [KENT GRAND + (NEW)] [NEW AQUA GRAND SMART] Plaintiff’s logo Defendant's logo

6. Holding that there was a prima facie case of infringement and passing off, on the part of the defendant, made out by the plaintiff, this Court, vide order dated 29th July 2022, while issuing summons in the suit also granted ex-parte ad interim injunction against the defendant from using the impugned design or the impugned logo.

7. Though Mr. Vidhani, learned Counsel for the defendant, submits that his client is not accepting the allegations in the plaint, the defendant does not oppose to the plaint being decreed in terms of prayers (a) to (c) thereof, already reproduced hereinabove, as litigating would be an impracticable exercise.

8. In view thereof, and in view of the statement made by learned Counsel for the plaintiff, the suit stands decreed in terms of prayers (a) to (c) in para 41 of the plaint already reproduced hereinabove.

9. The Registry is directed to draw up a decree-sheet accordingly.