The said design was registered with the statement of novelty that “The Novelty resides in the shape and configuration of WATER PURIFIER”, particularly as portion marked in ‘A’ and ‘B’ in Sheet 1-8 wherein ‘A’ denotes stepped construction and ‘B’ denotes concave depression. The same is depicted here:
Arguments made by Kent
Kent argued that the defendants were manufacturing and selling water purifiers under the brand “New Aqua Smart” which were identical in shape and design to Kent’s product. These products were being sold on Defendant No. 2’s platform (Flipkart). Kent claimed that the act of imitation misled consumers, resulting in confusion, and constituted passing off, thereby affecting their brand’s goodwill, reputation and sales.
The Court’s verdict
The Court examined Kent’s water purifier design, particularly noting its unique features and shape applied to the transparent upper body and opaque lower body. The Court observed that the defendants had genuinely copied these distinctive design features, creating an almost identical product that confused the potential customers. The takeaway was that the defendant infringed on products and sold them dishonestly, taking advantage of Kent’s established brand reputation.
The Court also observed that interim orders as such had passed in an earlier case pertaining to the same product design. It held that Kent has a prima facie case, and in case it did not have the interim injunction, it would have suffered an irreparable financial injury and compromised reputation. Since the verdict was in favour of Kent, the Court restrained Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 from manufacturing and selling the copied products. It further directed Defendant No. 2, Flipkart, to remove all listings of the infringing water purifiers and to provide KYC details of other defendants. The Court also instructed Kent to report cases of infringements to Flipkart for immediate removal.
The case has been scheduled for further proceedings on 29th January 2025.
What does this imply for all businesses?
Although it is a case of design infringement, which is adjudicated under India's Designs Act, it holds similarities with the principles applied under copyright law.
Both the design and copyright laws secure the originality and creativity of the artist, creators or designers. It emphasises that the product’s designs cannot be copied without the explicit consent of the registered proprietor or author. In the present case, the designs of Kent's Water Purifiers were legally protected under the Designs Act, in much the same way as copyright protects original artistic works, literature, or software.
The objective of the Designs Act and Copyright Act is to prevent third parties from exploiting someone else's creative effort. This ensures that the original creator's market value and reputation are not misused by imitators.
Infringement not only impacts the creator’s finances, but also impacts their market value and brand integrity. Enforcing these laws helps maintain the trust and credibility associated with the original design or work.
This legal framework is pivotal for any industry where creativity is a core aspect. This case is a clear example of how essential it is to protect your creation and enforce your monopoly rights, which in turn secures your goodwill and reputation.
FICPI's view and involvement
FICPI uniquely combines education and advocacy on topics around designs, patents and trade marks, with a focus on developing the professional excellence of its individual members. FICPI Forums, Congress, committees and meetings are opportunities to gather insights from the international IP attorney community on any issue, whether it be practice-related or topics of patent and trade mark law.
Next steps
- Search for FICPI members in India by navigating to the FICPI member directory and searching by country.
- Consider joining one of FICPI's seven Study & Work Groups, on topics from designs to alternate dispute resolution.