Kent RO System Limited v. Kent Air Eco Corporation Ltd. LP

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 2016:DHC:6874 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 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.

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..