Delhi High Court Upholds Interim Ban On Kent RO Selling Fans Under ‘KENT’ Trademark

The Court held that Kent Cables had made out a prima facie case of prior use of the mark for fans and that Kent RO could not now assert exclusive rights over it for that product category.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain dismissed the appeal filed by Kent RO Systems challenging an earlier order of a single judge of the High Court that had restrained the company from launching fans under the “KENT” mark.

The Court observed that although Kent RO had developed substantial goodwill in the “KENT” brand for several other household products, the circumstances of the case showed that the company could not claim rights over the mark for fans in the face of prior use by Kent Cables.

"While we are mindful of the fact that not allowing the appellants to launch their fans with the mark in which they have otherwise acquired substantial goodwill for other products, may cause prejudice to them, it is all of their own doing," the Court said.

The Court denied “unfair advantage” claim as was made by the Plaintiff Kent RO and observed, “…….appliances like fans can be said to be a natural progression of business for the respondents from their original business of electric wires and cables, switches, etc. The use of the same by the respondents, in the year 2009, when the appellants were admittedly not selling fans, and disputably in the business of other home appliances, cannot be said to be taking unfair advantage of the trade mark of the appellants.”

It also refuted the claim of infringement under Section 29(2) of the Act and held, “…..merely because fans also fall under Class 11, do not make them cognate goods to water purifiers or air purifiers. It is settled law that Classification is only for purposes of grant of registration, and cannot be determinative of whether the goods are similar.”

The dispute between the two companies arises from competing claims over the use of the mark “KENT” in the electrical and home appliances sector. Kent RO Systems stated before the Court that it first adopted the mark in 1988 in relation to oil meters. Over the years, the company expanded its product range to include water purifiers, air purifiers and other home appliances. It claimed that through extensive sales, advertising and marketing efforts, the brand had acquired significant goodwill and reputation in the market.

Kent Cables, however, asserted that it was the earlier adopter of the mark. The company told the Court that it began using the “KENT” mark in 1984 for insulated wires, cables and other electrical components. It also obtained trademark registration for the mark in 1986.

According to Kent Cables, its business gradually expanded into electrical appliances and it began selling fans under the “KENT” mark around 2009. The company relied on various documents to support this claim, including invoices, advertisements, government approvals and product certifications.

The conflict intensified in 2022 when Kent RO alleged that Kent Cables had begun expanding its operations into electrical appliances and kitchen appliances using the “KENT” mark. Kent RO subsequently approached the High Court seeking an injunction to restrain Kent Cables from using the mark for such products.

In response, Kent Cables filed a counter suit and sought to restrain Kent RO from launching fans under the same trademark.

In May 2023, a single judge of the Delhi High Court found that Kent Cables had established a prima facie case of prior use and restrained Kent RO from manufacturing or selling fans under the “KENT” mark. Kent RO then challenged that order before a Division Bench of the High Court.

While considering the appeal, the Division Bench examined the evidence produced by Kent Cables regarding its use of the mark for fans. The Court noted that the company had placed on record documents indicating that it had been selling fans under the “KENT” mark since at least 2009.

The Bench also observed that the sale of fans was a logical extension of Kent Cables’ existing electrical business.

“Appliances like fans can be said to be a natural progression of business for the respondents from their original business of electric wires and cables”, the Court said.

Kent RO had argued that fans were allied goods to water purifiers and other appliances sold by it under the “KENT” brand. The Court, however, rejected this contention and clarified that classification of goods under the same trademark class is not decisive in determining similarity.

“Classification is only for purposes of grant of registration and cannot determine similarity of goods,” the Bench observed.

Another significant factor considered by the Court was the delay on the part of Kent RO in initiating legal action. The Bench noted that Kent RO had opposed Kent Cables’ trademark application for fans as early as 2007 and had also issued a cease and desist notice to the company in 2011. Despite these steps, Kent RO did not approach the Court with a suit until 2022.

The Court held that such conduct amounted to acquiescence.

“Having opposed the registration and issued a notice, the appellants could not keep quiet and allow the respondents to grow,” the Bench said.

The Division Bench further held that Kent Cables had demonstrated prior use of the mark for fans. Under the Trade Marks Act, a party that can establish earlier use of a mark may defeat a later claim of infringement.

In light of these findings, the Court upheld the interim order restraining Kent RO from launching or selling fans under the “KENT” mark.

At the same time, the Bench clarified that the observations made in its order were only of a prima facie nature and would not influence the final outcome of the case during the trial.

“….prior use of the mark „KENT‟ by the respondents for fans, is itself sufficient to disentitle the appellants for an injunctive relief against the respondents, at least, at this interim stage”, the court observed in the order.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed as meritless.

Case Title: Kent RO Systems Ltd. & Ors. v. Kent Cables Private Limited & Ors.

Bench: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain

Date of Judgement: 11.03.2026