KENT R-O SYSTEMS LTD Vs. SANDEEP AGASRWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) From the pleadings and rival contentions the admitted position that we arrive at, would be, as stated hereinafter.

(2.) Kent R-O systems Limited the appellant, would claim to be well known in the field of water purifier. They are engaged in manufacture of water purifier as per the design duly registered and certified by the appropriate authority. The Patent Office of the Government of India would certify the design that we find from the photograph and the equipment produced in Court. The certificate would appear at pages 26-32 of the paper book. The respondents would claim to be also dealing with the business of water purifier. They would buy components as well as case from the market and assemble it in their workshop that they would mark in the name of Aryan Appliances. The subject controversy would relate to the case used by Aryan Appliances that is almost identical with that of Kent R-O systems Limited. The appellant Kent R-O systems Limited would claim, they are registered in class 23-01 whereas Aryan Appliances would also claim, they are permitted user of the case from A.N. Polymer Pvt. Ltd. the registered mark holder under the same class. They would rely upon the patent certificate of A.N. Polymer Pvt. Ltd. appearing at pages 46-52 coupled with a letter of Authority from A.N. Polymer Pvt. Ltd. dated October 06, 2013, copy of which was produced in Court during hearing. We are told, Kent R-O Systems Limited filed the suit against Aryan Appliances, they would claim, they did not know about the A.N. Polymer Pvt. Ltd.. Hence, they could not make them party, however, despite having knowledge Kent R-O Systems Limited up till date did not make any application for amendment bringing A.N. Polymer Pvt. Ltd. into controversy. Kent R-O Systems Limited also did not file any application for cancellation of the registration of A.N. Polymer Pvt. Ltd.. They would insist upon an order of injunction restraining Aryan Appliances in using the design and marketing or selling similar product. Learned Judge did not feel inclined hence, this appeal.

(3.) Learned Judge passed the order impugned on October 9, 2013 by vacating the earlier interim order passed ex-parte and gave directions for filing of affidavits. We are told, the application is still pending and awaiting its logical conclusion.