Delhi High Court Awards Damages To Eureka Forbes Over Counterfeiting Of Aquaguard Spare Parts
The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of home appliance manufacturer Eureka Forbes, against counterfeiting of the spare parts and consumables of its famous Aquaguard.Noting that due to its long and continuous use, Eureka Forbes has acquired a copyright over the labels Aquaguard and other formative marks, Justice Amit Bansal held that a clear case of trademark...
The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of home appliance manufacturer Eureka Forbes, against counterfeiting of the spare parts and consumables of its famous Aquaguard.
Noting that due to its long and continuous use, Eureka Forbes has acquired a copyright over the labels Aquaguard and other formative marks, Justice Amit Bansal held that a clear case of trademark and copyright infringement is made out against the Defendants.
Defendants No.1 to 3 are dealers/distributors based in Maharashtra, and Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 are dealers/distributors located in Odisha. Defendants no.6 to 13 are dealers/distributors based in Delhi. Defendant no.14 is a John Doe defendant.
Significant to note that the Defendants no.3, 6, 7 and 8 entered mediation and the matter was settled and decreed qua Eureka Forbes.
Defendants no.1 and 10 also settled the dispute and agreed to pay ₹60,000 and ₹10,000 as damages, respectively.
So far as Defendants no. 2, 4, 5, 9, 11 and 13 are concerned, they failed to appear despite summons and no written statement was also filed. As such, the Court held that all averments made in the plaint by Eureka Forbes are deemed to be admitted by the Defendants.
It observed, “The unauthorised use of the 'AQUA' marks by the said defendants is deliberate, unjustified, and intended solely to capitalise on the plaintiff's established goodwill. The plaintiff has no control over the quality of these infringing goods, and the sale thereof is likely to cause consumer confusion, dilute the distinctiveness of the plaintiff's brand, and erode public trust. Such acts pose a grave threat to the plaintiff's business interests and hard-earned reputation.”
As such, based on the quantum of counterfeit products seized from them, the Court ordered Defendant no.2 to pay Rs.30,000, Defendant no.4 to pay Rs.1,00,000, Defendant no.5 to pay Rs.60,000, Defendant no.9 to pay Rs.15,000 and Defendant no.13 to pay Rs.10,000 as damages to Eureka Forbes.
Appearance: Mr. Shivankar Sharma and Mr. Ayush Singh, Advocates for Plaitniff; Mr. Divyansh Tiwari, Advocate for defendant no. 1. Mr. Dharmendra Kr. Verma, Advocate for defendant no. 10. Mr. Nipun Dwivedi, Advocate for defendant no. 12.
Case title: Eureka Forbes Limited (Formerly Forbes Enviro Solutions Limited) v. Nandan Sales And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 569
Case no.: CS(COMM) 566/2023