$~33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 13th March, 2026 + CS(COMM) 681/2024 KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD & ANR. .....Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Kumar Chitranshu and Mr. Ansh Sharma, Advocates. versus KANCHAN SINGH & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Defendants No. 1, 2 and 4 are ex parte. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH JUDGEMENT JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. Present suit is instituted by the Plaintiffs seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants and all others acting on their behalf from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising and/or directly or indirectly dealing in any goods under Plaintiffs’ trademark KENT or any other mark which is identical to or deceptively similar thereto, amongst other reliefs. 2. As per the plaint, Defendants No.1, 2 and 4 are various entities which were selling infringing products on e-commerce platform IndiaMart/ Defendant No. 3. By ex parte ad interim order dated 12.08.2024, Court restrained the Defendants from manufacturing, selling etc., any goods under Plaintiffs’ mark KENT and/or any mark deceptively similar thereto and/or goods which infringed Plaintiffs’ registered design no. 312406. Defendant No. 3 was represented on the said date and summons were issued to the remaining Defendants. On 04.11.2024, it was recorded that Defendants No.1, 2 and 4 were served with summons but there was no appearance on their behalf and that Defendant No. 3 had complied with the directions passed by the Court. By order dated 18.09.2025, right of Defendants No.1, 2 and 4 to file written statements was closed since no written statements were filed within the maximum permissible period. 3. On 21.11.2025, Court decreed the suit qua Defendant No. 3 in terms of prayer clause 92 (d) and (e) of the plaint. Plaintiffs sought time to seek instructions with respect to prosecuting the suit qua Defendants No.1, 2 and 4 since they had not joined proceedings despite service. On 24.12.2025, counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that the suit be disposed of qua Defendants No.1, 2 and 4 limited to relief of permanent injunction and Plaintiffs will not press the remaining reliefs. Defendant No. 5 being John Doe was deleted from array of parties and since none appeared for Defendants No.1, 2 and 4 they were set ex parte and the suit was listed for disposal. Amended memo of parties was filed by the Plaintiffs and original Defendants No.1, 2 and 4 were arrayed as Defendants No.1, 2 and 3. 4. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that Plaintiff No. 1 is one of the leading companies in India engaged in business of manufacture and sale of diverse range of home electronic items like water purifiers, air purifiers, kitchen appliances, vacuum cleaners, water softeners, automatic water pressure boosting systems, CCTV Cameras etc., under the trademark KENT. Plaintiff No. 2 adopted the mark KENT in 1988 and while initially it was conducting the business of oil meters, it subsequently expanded its footprint in various other segments such as water purifiers, air purifiers, kitchen appliances etc., and the said entity assigned its trademark KENT under various classes in favour of Plaintiff No. 2 vide Assignment Deed dated 02.07.2007. 5. It is stated that in 1999, Plaintiff No. 2 launched the revolutionary Reverse Osmosis (‘RO’) based domestic water purifier in the Indian market under the trademark KENT and was also granted a patent, which has now expired. RO is a technology validated by UNESCO and certified by organizations such as NFS International, Water Quality Association, TUV SUD America Inc. and ISO. In 1999, Plaintiff No. 2 also founded a firm M/s Kent RO Systems with a vision of providing pure and healthy drinking water in Indian homes. In 2007, Plaintiff No. 2 incorporated Plaintiff No. 1, which took over the business of M/s Kent RO Systems, including its assets and liabilities and expanded the business under the mark KENT and since then mark KENT has been extensively and continuously used and currently Plaintiff No. 1 has a team of about 5000 employees supporting in developing the new technology of its products and serving customers throughout the world. 6. It is stated that Plaintiff No. 2 is the registered proprietor of trademark KENT and other entities including Plaintiff No. 1 are conducting businesses by virtue of license granted by Plaintiff No. 2. The registrations obtained by Plaintiff No. 2, which are valid and subsisting are as follows:- 7. It is stated that Plaintiffs have also registered their domain names kentrosystems.com and https://www.kent.co.in/ on 19.03.2021 and 03.02.2006, respectively. Since 1988, Plaintiffs have extensively sold their products under mark KENT and the increasing sales turnover establish the measure of public reaction, reputation and goodwill acquired by the Plaintiffs. Details of sales of Plaintiff No. 1’s products under the mark KENT are as follows:- 8. It is stated that Plaintiffs have invested time, effort and money in promoting their products under KENT apart from incurring huge costs on endorsement of their products by various celebrities such as Mr. Shahrukh Khan, Ms. Hema Malini, Ms. Esha Deol, Mr. Boman Irani. Advertisements have been released on various TV channels including Sony, Star, Zee TV as also published in print media including leading newspapers such as Times of India, Economic Times and Hindustan Times. Plaintiff No. 1 is the principal sponsor of almost all news channels during Prime Time (07:00 PM to 10:00 PM) such as Aajtak, ABP News, Times Now, Republic Bharat etc. Plaintiff No. 1 was associate sponsor of ICC Cricket World Cup and has also sponsored numerous IPLs, ODIs and Test matches. Plaintiff No. 1 has received several awards for its excellent quality such as Best Domestic Purifier by UNESCO, The Golden Peacock Award, Excellence Award by Institute of Economic Studies, Distinguished Water Purifier-Reverse Osmosis Award by UNESCO, Indian Home Award, 2012, India’s Most Trusted Water Purifier Brand, to name a few. Advertisement and promotional figures from 2018-2019 to 2022-2023 are as follows:- 9. It is stated that trademark KENT has been declared as well-known trademark by this Court in CS (OS) 1626/2014 titled ‘Kent RO Systems Ltd. v. Kentech Technology & Ors.’, and is published in the list of well-known marks in Trade Marks Journal No. 2110 on 26.06.2023. Plaintiffs have diligently protected their statutory and common law rights in KENT and this Court has granted interim injunctions in many matters, details of which are furnished in the plaint. All this reflects that Plaintiffs’ products under KENT command a substantive market and are associated exclusively with the Plaintiffs. 10. It is stated that Plaintiffs have obtained design registration in respect of the aesthetic appearance of the water purification systems. In particular, Plaintiff No. 2 has been granted design registration no. 312406 on 26.11.2018, as follows:- 11. It is stated that the said design registration was granted with the following statement of novelty: “The Novelty resides in the shape and configuration of WATER PURIFIER, particularly as portion marked in ‘A’ and ‘B’ in Sheet 1-8”. Design registration has been licensed to Plaintiff No. 1 by Plaintiff No. 2 and is valid and in force. Plaintiffs launched the purifier in a shape which was covered by design no. 312406 under the mark KENT GRAND + (New) in 2019, whereafter the ZERO WATER WASTAGE technology was introduced and it came to be known as KENT GRAND+ ZWW. The new technology involves pushing the rejected water in the system back to the overhead tank thereby rendering water wastage to almost zero and hence, instead of wasting the rejected water, its get diluted and is reused as normal tap water for household purposes. 12. It is stated that around April-May, 2024, Plaintiffs received complaints from its consumers and field forces that several water purifier systems bearing mark KENT or having same shape as of design no. 312406 were being sold on Defendant No. 3. Investigation revealed that Defendants No.1 and 3 were using mark KENT for their water purifier albeit labelled as KENT RO WATER PURIFIER FOR HOME, KENT WATER PURIFIER, KENT COMPLETE MACHINE RO AQUA CANDY FOR HOME, KENT RO+UV AQUAGUARD WATER PURIFIER. In addition, Defendant No. 2 was manufacturing, assembling and selling water purifiers which were replica of Plaintiffs’ KENT GRAND+ ZWW and also infringing design no. 312406 to create an association with Plaintiffs’ products. Screenshots of some of the infringing products are as follows:- 13. Learned counsel for the Plaintiffs submits that Defendants are engaged in the business of selling water purifiers using the registered KENT marks of the Plaintiffs and the design of their water purifiers is an exact copy of Plaintiffs’ registered design no. 312406. Defendants have attempted to come as close as possible to Plaintiffs’ product by using identical colour palate and arrangement of the logo, with an intent to ride upon and encash their hard earned reputation and goodwill. The extent of dishonesty is evident from the fact that Defendants have even adopted mark AQUA GRAND+ for selling water purifiers, which is visually, structurally and phonetically deceptively similar to Plaintiffs’ KENT GRAND+ ZWW, a mark coined and invented by the Plaintiffs and being arbitrary and fanciful has a degree of protection. A comparison of similarities between the rival designs reflects that no stone has been left unturned to copy the registered design of the Plaintiffs. Defendants have never taken any license or permission to use the mark KENT and/or the registered design of the Plaintiffs. Registration in the mark KENT grants statutory rights to the Plaintiffs to protect its mark as also to use it exclusively. The rival marks are identical/deceptively similar and the goods are identical. The trade channels and consumers being common, confusion amongst members of public and consumers is inevitable and thus Defendants are infringing Plaintiffs’ well-known KENT trademark under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘1999 Act’) as also Plaintiffs’ registered designs, which can be seen from the comparative features brought forth in the plaint. In this backdrop, it is prayed that the suit be decreed granting permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiffs and against Defendants. 14. Heard learned counsel for the Plaintiffs. 15. Plaintiff No. 2 is the registered proprietor of trademark KENT and its formative marks and the registrations are valid and subsisting. KENT has been declared as a well-known trademark by this Court and is included in the list of well-known trademarks in the Trade Marks Journal. As per the case set out by the Plaintiffs in the plaint and supported by documents, they have earned formidable goodwill and reputation by sale of products under the mark KENT, more particularly, water purifiers with a special technology of RO, which is evidenced by the sales turnover over the years. Substantial expenditure is incurred by the Plaintiffs in advertising and promoting the products under KENT, which is substantiated by the document on record. Several awards have been received by the Plaintiffs and their RO technology is validated by UNESCO and certified by organizations such as NFS International, Water Quality Association, TUV SUD America Inc. and ISO. Many celebrities have endorsed the KENT purifier and as brought forth in the plaint, Plaintiffs have sponsored many IPL, ODI and Test matches and are sponsors on many prime TV channels. Plaintiffs design in the KENT water purifier is registered under design no. 312406 dated 26.11.2018, where the novelty resides in shape and configuration of the water purifier. 16. There is no gainsaying that since Plaintiff No.2 has registrations in trademark KENT and its formative marks and Plaintiff No.1 is the authorised and permitted user, they are entitled to exclusive use of the marks and restrain third parties from infringement by virtue of Section 28 of the 1999 Act. KENT has been declared as a well-known mark and is entitled to a high degree of protection. Comparison of Plaintiffs’ trademark KENT with the impugned marks KENT RO WATER PURIFIER FOR HOME, KENT WATER PURIFIER, KENT COMPLETE MACHINE RO AQUA CANDY FOR HOME, KENT RO+UV AQUAGUARD WATER PURIFIER, leaves no doubt that the impugned marks are deceptively similar to Plaintiffs’ KENT marks. Since the impugned marks are deceptively similar and are used by Defendants for identical goods i.e., water purifiers, there is every likelihood of confusion amongst the members of public and potential consumers, trade channels and consumers being common. Written statements have not been filed by the Defendants and thus the averments in the plaint and the contents of accompanying documents are uncontroverted and deemed to be admitted. It is thus held that Defendants’ use of KENT mark in respect of water purifier amounts to infringement under Section 29 of the 1999 Act. 17. Plaintiff No. 2 has registration in the water purifier and certificate of registration shows that registration was granted with a statement that novelty resides in the shape and configuration of the water purifier. Registration has been licensed to Plaintiff No. 1 by Plaintiff No. 2 and is in force. From the averments in the plaint and the documents filed therewith, it can be seen that Plaintiffs’ design has a transparent upper half and an opaque lower half. Top portion of the design contains a stepped construction and the middle portion has a wave like pattern and an inverted-truncated frustum shape. Upper and lower half are separated by a prominent belt and lower half bears a concave depression wherein water indicator and water tap are placed. Edges of the lower half are curved with the flat bottom and the features have an aesthetic appeal with no functionality. It is brought out by the Plaintiffs that after the application was filed for design registration, objections were raised by the Controller of Designs which included the objection that the design was not novel in view of a prior art. This position was successfully defended by Plaintiff No. 2 and the design thereafter proceeded to registration. By virtue of design registration, Plaintiffs enjoy the monopoly to commercialize the same and to restrain third parties from copying. Comparison of Plaintiffs’ design with Defendant No. 2’s product is as follows:- 18. The similarities between the rival designs have been elaborately brought out in the plaint and can be diagrammatically demonstrated as follows:- 19. From a comparison of the rival designs, it is easily discernable that transparent upper half and opaque lower half, stepped construction at the top of its transparent half, a protruding step-like feature, the upper and lower half separated by a prominent belt, the lower half of the design bearing a concave depression wherein the water indicator and water tap are placed, are all copied by the Defendant including the edges of the lower half portion, which are curved with a flat bottom. The dishonesty in adoption of the design and the marks is further substantiated by the fact that Defendants have adopted the name AQUA GRAND+ on the water purifiers, which is deceptively similar to KENT GRAND+ ZWW. 20. Defendants have chosen to stay away from the proceedings and did not appear despite service and were set ex parte. No steps were taken for setting aside the ex parte order and Defendants never joined the proceedings thereafter. It is thus clear that Defendants are not interested in contesting the suit. Written statements were not filed and right to file the same stands closed. This order was also not challenged and hence, there is no real prospect of defending the claims of the Plaintiffs in these circumstances and Plaintiffs are held entitled to a decree in their favour. 21. Accordingly, this suit is decreed in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants in terms of paragraph 92 (a), (b) and (c) of the plaint since Plaintiffs have given up the remaining reliefs. 22. Registry is directed to draw up the decree sheet. 23. Suit stands disposed of. JYOTI SINGH, J MARCH 13, 2026/AK CS(COMM) 681/2024 Page 12 of 12