Kei Industries Limited v. Mr Raman Kwatra & Anr.
This case involves a trademark dispute between Kei Industries Ltd (the plaintiff) and Mr Raman Kwatra & Anr (the defendants) over the use of the mark "KEI" in connection with electrical goods. The plaintiff alleges infringement of their registered trademark and seeks an injunction against the defendants. The defendants claim honest concurrent usage of the mark. The Delhi High Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, granting an injunction against the defendants from using the mark "KEI" for electrical goods.
Kei Industries Limited v. Mr Raman Kwatra & Anr.
CS(COMM) 9/2021
Decided on: 17th May 2022
Brief Facts
KEI Industries Ltd, the plaintiff, has alleged that the defendants have infringed on its registered trademark "KEI". The plaintiff claims to have created, designed and adopted the logo mark of KEI in 2007 for its goods and services. Since then, the plaintiff has been using the said logo exclusively and continuously. Recently, the plaintiff noticed that the defendants had applied for registration of the same mark. Given that the defendants are involved in the manufacture and sale of electrical goods, the plaintiff sent a cease-and-desist notice to the defendants, asking them to withdraw their applications for registration and to stop using the KEI mark. The defendants responded to the legal notice, to which the plaintiff replied. The plaintiff also filed oppositions before the Registry of Trademarks. However, since the defendants have failed to discontinue their usage of the allegedly infringing mark, the plaintiff has filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction.
Contentions by The Plaintiff:
The plaintiff alleges that they were initially functioning as Krishna Electrical Industries, a partnership firm, which was later incorporated into a public limited company. They claim that they have been using the trademark, trade name, and corporate name 'KEI' since they commenced their business in 1968. The wordmark 'KEI' was first registered in favour of the plaintiff in Class 9 and then subsequently into other classes
The plaintiff argues that over time, the trademark 'KEI' has become a source identifier of their goods and businesses. They further claim that as 'KEI' is the most prominent, essential and striking part of the defendants' mark, it would inevitably deceive, confuse, and mislead a person who came across the defendant's mark. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants are illegally trying to capitalize on the goodwill and reputation earned by the plaintiff and its mark.
As the defendants failed to discontinue usage of the alleged infringing mark, the plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking an injunction.
Contentions by The Defendant:
The defendant claims that Kwality Electrico (India), a business trading in electrical goods like electric fans, room coolers, geysers, electric heating apparatus, and electric rods under their trademark/label, was started by Om Prakash Kwatra ("OPK"), the father of Defendant Raman Kwatra, in 1966. On September 1, 1966, Kwality Electrico (India) was registered as a sole proprietorship of OPK. Then, on 4th April 1997, OPK applied for the registration of the ‘logo of KEI’ in Classes 9 and 11.
Before his demise, OPK granted his son Rajiv Kwatra permission to use the brand ‘KWALITY’. Based on this permission, Rajiv Kwatra, trading as Orsons Home Appliances, obtained registrations of the ‘logo of KEI’ in Class 9 on 23rd April 2005, claiming user since 30th October 1966, and in Class 11 on 2nd March 2007, claiming user since 10th October 1966. Both were device marks, and the registrations contain disclaimers for the words ‘Kwality’ and ‘India’.
The defendant argues that they are the honest and concurrent user of the Kwality Electrico (India) trademark.
Court Judgment:
The defendants have admitted that they created the impugned mark in 2008, while the plaintiff's word mark registration dates back to September 27, 1988, and its device mark registrations to June 14 and 29, 2007. The plaintiff has claimed user since 1966 in their filed application, which gives them priority of registration and user compared to the defendants. The earliest invoices from the defendants are from 2015. Therefore, the plaintiff not only has priority of registration but also a priority of user compared to the defendants.
The Delhi High Court has observed that when a case of infringement is established, an injunction necessarily follows and that it is not a defence for the defendant to argue that the use of the allegedly infringing mark was honest and concurrent. Justice C Hari Shankar found a prima facie case in favour of Kei Industries Limited for an interlocutory injunction, thus restraining the defendants or anyone acting on their behalf from using the impugned mark "KEI" in relation to any electrical goods or instruments, including electrical fans, room coolers, geysers, electric heating apparatus, and so on.
Conclusion:
The Delhi High Court ruled in favour of Kei Industries Limited in their trademark case against Mr Raman Kwatra & Anr. The court granted an injunction preventing the defendants from using the impugned mark "KEI" in connection with electrical goods or instruments. This decision highlights the importance of protecting intellectual property rights and safeguarding the reputation of businesses.
