The Supreme Court of India, on Friday, declined to overturn a Delhi High Court order that prohibited Kent RO Systems Limited from manufacturing or selling fans under the ‘KENT’ trademark. The case, titled Kent RO Systems v. Kent Cables, saw a Bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Vinod Chandran dismiss the appeal, affirming the High Court’s interim protection granted to Kent Cables.
“We find no error, legal or otherwise, in the High Court’s decision to pass the interim order,” the Supreme Court stated. However, it instructed that the cross-litigation between Kent RO and Kent Cables be expedited by the High Court. “Given the unique circumstances of this case, swift adjudication of the main suit is in the interest of justice,” the Court directed.
This legal tussle traces back to March when a Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Madhu Jain from the Delhi High Court upheld an interim order that stopped Kent RO from using the KENT trademark for fans. Kent Cables, the plaintiff, contended it had been using the KENT mark since 1984 for products like insulated wires and cables, obtaining trademark registration in 1986. It expanded its product range to include electrical appliances, selling fans under the KENT name since approximately 2009.
Conversely, Kent RO argued that it began using the KENT name in 1988 for oil meters and gradually moved into other home appliances, including water and air purifiers. Kent RO claimed substantial goodwill associated with the KENT brand. Despite this, the High Court found evidence that Kent Cables was the prior user of the KENT mark for fans, supported by invoices, certifications, government approvals, and advertisements.
Significantly, the High Court noted that Kent RO had opposed Kent Cables’ trademark application for fans in 2007 and sent a cease-and-desist letter in 2011, yet delayed legal action until 2022. The Court thus concluded, on a prima facie basis, that Kent Cables had established prior use of the KENT mark for fans.
More Read
During the Supreme Court proceedings, justices repeatedly questioned Kent RO’s intent to venture into the fan market, given Kent Cables’ established use of the KENT mark for fans. “When he has been in business for two decades, and you are just now entering it, the injunction is justified,” the Court observed orally.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Kent RO, argued that the company owned a well-known mark with registrations for various products. He challenged the High Court’s determination that Kent RO lacked a trademark registration for fans, emphasizing that trademark law does not necessitate separate registrations for each product.
Despite these arguments, the Supreme Court was not convinced to lift the interim injunction. Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta represented Kent Cables in the proceedings.
