ATOMBERG TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LTD. Vs. EUREKA FORBES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1983 of 2025, seeks transfer of the Suit for Infringement[CS (COMM) NO. 663 of 2025] (Delhi Suit) instituted by the respondent no.1 before the High Court of Delhi to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, where the petitioner's Suit for Groundless Threat of Infringement is pending adjudication. Respondent no.1 also filed Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 2174 of 2025, seeking transfer of the Suit for the Groundless Threat of Infringement[COMMERCIAL IP (L) No. 19837 of 2025] (Bombay Suit) instituted by the petitioner before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay to the High Court of Delhi

(2.) The petitioner, engaged in the manufacturing and selling of home and kitchen appliances, launched a water purifier under the unique and distinctive mark "Atomberg Intellon" on June 20, 2025. Soon after the launch, the petitioner became aware that respondent no. 1, a competitor in the manufacturing of water purifiers, allegedly made groundless and unjustified oral communications to the petitioner's distributors and retailers, claiming that the petitioner's product infringed their patents and threatened legal proceedings. These threats caused apprehension and fear among the petitioner's customers and distributors, affecting the petitioner's business. In response to these groundless threats of patent infringement, the petitioner instituted the Bombay Suit on 1/7/2025, under Sec. 106 of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking relief from such threats made by respondent no. 1.

(3.) The respondent no.1, who is also engaged in the manufacturing and selling of home and kitchen appliances, including water purifiers, allegedly discovered that the petitioner had launched "Atomberg Intellon" water purifiers on June 20, 2025, featuring patented technologies owned by them. It is alleged by respondent no.1 that petitioner's product included customizable taste and TDS adjustment modes, which mirror the respondent no.1's patented innovations. It is further alleged that respondent no.2, Ronch Polymers Pvt. Ltd, which is the petitioner's manufacturer, had previously served as the respondent no.1's contract manufacturer, giving them access to confidential product knowledge. When respondent no.1 came to know about the product of the petitioner, it purchased the petitioner's product by placing an order online and received the delivery of the product in Delhi. Upon technical analysis of the delivered product, it is alleged that the patent infringement was confirmed. Consequently, the respondent no.1 instituted the Delhi Suit for patent infringement under Sec. 104 of the Patents Act, 1970, along with an application for injunction seeking to restrain the petitioner from patent infringement.