Allowed

Mahesh Gupta & Anr. v. Rajeev Mittal & Anr.

Delhi HC7 Feb 2018CS(COMM)/542/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a suit for permanent injunction regarding design infringement of water purifiers, the defendants consented to the injunction. The court passed a decree granting permanent injunction, recovery of Rs. 50,000 as compensation, and costs of Rs. 2,00,000 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Decree for permanent injunction, compensation of Rs. 50,000, and costs of Rs. 2,00,000 with interest.

Mahesh Gupta & Anr. Vs Rajeev Mittal & Anr. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~5

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 542/2017 & IA No.9370/2017 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC).

¶4

MAHESH GUPTA & ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through: Ms. Rajeshwari H., and Mr. Kumar Chitrawshu, Advs.

¶5

Versus

¶6

RAJEEV MITTAL & ANR ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Anuj Bedi, Adv.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW O R D E R

¶8

% 07.02.2018

¶9

The two plaintiffs namely (i) Mahesh Gupta; and, (ii) Kent RO Systems Ltd. have instituted this suit to restrain the two defendants namely (i) Rajeev Mittal; and, (ii) Micropure Healthcare Technologies from infringing the designs no.224813, 219309, 252225 and 261875 of the plaintiffs with respect to water purifiers.

¶10

The suit was entertained and vide ex parte order dated 21^st August, 2017 the defendants restrained from selling, importing, offering for sale or advertising directly or indirectly the products infringing the aforesaid designs and the product under the name ‘DIVINE’ which was found to be deceptively similar in design to the plaintiffs’ product ‘KENT PRIME’.

¶11

No written statement has been filed by the defendants till now though the counsel for the defendants has been appearing for the last several dates. 4. The counsel for the defendants today states that both the defendants are willing to suffer a decree for permanent injunction as sought in prayer

¶12

page 1 of 3

¶13

CS(COMM) 542/2017

¶14

paragraph 43 ‘(a)’ & ‘(b)’ of the plaint dated 17^th August, 2017 and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiffs.

¶15

On enquiry, it is stated that the defendants are not the manufacturers of the impugned product and were selling the products and have sold about 100 or 102 water purifiers under the impugned design at a price of Rs.7,000/- each and in which the defendants have a profit margin of Rs.1,000/- each water purifier.

¶16

The counsel for the plaintiffs on enquiry states that the price of the water purifiers of the plaintiffs varies from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.10,000/-.

¶17

Need to relegate the parties to evidence on the aspect of compensation is not felt. It is deemed appropriate to, besides the relief of permanent injunction to which the defendants have consented, award compensation to the plaintiffs against the defendants of Rs.50,000/- as also offered by the defendants and to also hold the plaintiffs entitled to costs of the suit from the defendants.

¶18

A decree is accordingly passed in favour of the plaintiffs and jointly and severally against the defendants (i) of permanent injunction in terms of prayer paragraph 43 ‘(a)’ & ‘(b)’ of the plaint dated 17^th August, 2017; (ii) of recovery of compensation of Rs.50,000/-; and, (iii) of costs of this suit. Consolidated costs assessed at Rs.2,00,000/-.

¶19

If the compensation and costs are not paid on or before 30^th April, 2018, they shall also incur interest at 8% per annum from today till the date of payment/realisation. It is made clear that interest on costs has been

¶20

page 2 of 3

¶21

CS(COMM) 542/2017

¶22

awarded since the award of compensation and costs is keeping in light the statements of the parties.

¶23

Decree sheet be drawn up.

¶24

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. FEBRUARY 07, 2018 ‘pp’ CS(COMM) 542/2017 page 3 of 3

Mahesh Gupta & Anr. v. Rajeev Mittal & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Gupta & Anr. v. Rajeev Mittal & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs Grasim Electricals and Switch Gear Pvt. Ltd.

Marico Limited Vs Gurcharan Singh Vidyarthi & Anr.

Shri Surinder Nayyar & Ors. Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation

Rony Kaula Vs Vijay Gutte

Lg Corp & Ors. Vs Rajesh Gupta & Ors.

Dr Abburi Ramaiah Vs Ind-Swift Ltd.

M/S Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs M/S Vighnaharta Direct Insurance Broking Pvt. Ltd.

Jain Riceland Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sagar Overseas

Shri Surinder Nayyar & Ors. Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation

Shri Vikas Gupta & Others Vs Smt Renu Gupta & Others

Nirmal Mehta & Ors. Vs Kusum Mehta & Ors.

Sunita Vs Lekh Raj Others

Aravali Infrapower Ltd. & Anr. Vs R.B Gupta & Ors.

Dr Abburi Ramaiah Vs Ind-Swift Ltd.