Delhi High Court: In a suit filed by Eureka Forbes Limited (‘the plaintiff’) seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the trade mark and copyright of the plaintiff, passing off their goods as that of the plaintiff, along with other ancillary reliefs, Amit Bansal, J., stated that since, Defendant 3 had failed to take any requisite steps to contest the present suit, despite having suffered an ad interim injunction order, the Court stated that it was evident that he had no defence to put forth on merits. Thus, the Court granted a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against Defendants 3. Further, a decree of damages and costs of Rs. 2,00,000 was passed in the plaintiff’s favour and against Defendant 3.
Background
The plaintiff was a portfolio company of Advent International, a global private equity firm, and was engaged in diverse business activities that encompasses manufacturing, marketing, and selling of home appliances such as water purifiers, vacuum cleaners, air purifiers, etc., under a number of distinctive trade marks.
The plaintiff through its predecessor in title adopted the trade mark ‘AQUAGUARD’/ 
in 1982 in respect of water purification systems that were premised on UV and Reverse Osmosis (‘RO’) technology. Apart from water purifiers, the plaintiff’s revenue was also generated from the sale of spares and consumables under the marks ‘AQUAGUARD’, ‘AQUAGUARD I FILTER’ and ‘AQUASFILTER’, which were specifically designed as per sediment filtration technology. To replace the aforesaid spares having the said technology, the plaintiff provided Annual Maintenance Contracts (AMC) to its customers after the warranty period of the water purifiers expires which was on yearly basis.
The earliest registration of the mark ‘AQUAGUARD’ dates to the year 1992 in India. The plaintiff’s artworks/labels were “original artistic work” as per Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957, and the plaintiff was the first owner of the copyright therein by virtue of Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
In April-May 2023, the plaintiff started receiving complaints that certain spare parts and consumables (including but not limited to Water Filters, Candles, MLTs [Multi Layered Threaded Filters], Tubes, RO Membranes, Flow Restrictor, Connectors, Hooks, Copper/Zinc Infusion Cartridges) were being counterfeited by third party entities in the market.
Through multiple enquiries, the plaintiff learnt that the defendants were operating in various parts of Bihar and Delhi and were involved in the manufacture and sale of counterfeit products that incorporate the registered marks and the original copyrighted artistic work owned by the plaintiff. Defendants 1 and 2 were marketing and selling the counterfeit products, procured from the manufacturer i.e. Defendant 3.
Accordingly, the plaintiff filed the present suit seeking to restrain the defendants from carrying on their infringing activities.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that from the averments made in the plaint and the evidence on record, the plaintiff was able to prove that it was the registered proprietor of the trade mark ‘AQUAGUARD’ and other formative marks. Further due to its long and continuous use, the plaintiff had also acquired a copyright over the labels. Thereafter, on perusal of the product of Defendant 3, it was evident that the marks used were identical to ‘AQUAGUARD’ and ‘AQUA’ formative marks and that Defendant 3 had employed a nearly identical trade dress and have substantially reproduced the plaintiff’s artistic work in the spares/consumables of the water purification systems.
Thus, the Court stated that a clear case of infringement of trade mark and copyright was made out. Defendant 3 had taken unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff’s trade marks/artistic works and had also deceived the unwary consumers of their association with the plaintiff by dishonestly adopting the plaintiff’s registered marks/labels without any plausible explanation. Therefore, the plaintiff had established a case of passing off as well.
Further, on the aspect of costs, the Court stated that, it could not be disputed that at the bare minimum, the plaintiff has incurred legal costs of Rs. 2,05,000 towards court fees and further a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs towards the fees of the three Local Commissioners appointed by this Court. Thus, besides the relief of permanent injunction, the plaintiff had also made out a case for award of damages and costs.
Since, Defendant 3 had failed to take any requisite steps to contest the present suit, despite having suffered an ad interim injunction order, the Court stated that it was evident that he had no defence to put forth on merits. Thus, the Court granted a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against Defendants 3. Further, a decree of damages and costs of Rs. 2,00,000 was passed in the plaintiff’s favour and against Defendant 3.
[Eureka Forbes Ltd. v. Om Sai Enterprises, I.A. 5751 of 2025, decided on 04-03-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: Shivankar Sharma, Ayush Singh and Urvashi Raj, Advocates
