Delhi High Court Issues Permanent Injunction Against Trademark & Copyright Infringement Of Acquaguard's Spare Parts, Imposes ₹2 Lakh Costs

Eureka Forbes Limited (plaintiff) manufactures and sells water purifiers and its spares and consumables under the 'AQUAGUARD' and formative trademarks.

Eureka stated that it adopted the trademark Aquaguard in 1982 with respect to water purification systems that were premised on UV and Reverse Osmosis technology. It stated that is sells spares and consumables under various marks including Aquaguard, Aquaguard I Filter And Aquasfilter.

Eureka stated that the earliest registration of the Aquaguard mark in India was in 1992. It stated that it is also the owner of various artistic works, which it has registered as copyrights.

It stated that it operates in over 135 cities across India and further 1515 towns and 400 smaller towns through its authorized channels with 19,850 dealers all over the country. It stated that for 2021-22, its sales turnover was Rs. 276.84 crore and advertisement expenses was Rs. 2.76 crore.

In 2023, Eureka received complaints complaints that certain spare parts and consumables were being counterfeited by third party entities in the market. Through its enquiries, it learnt that defendants were operating in various parts of Bihar and Delhi and involved in the manufacture and sale of counterfeit products that incorporated its registered marks and the copyrighted artistic work.

On 21 August 2023, the Court had granted ex parte ad interim injunction, restraining defendants from manufacturing, selling and advertising the water purification systems using Eureka's trademarks and artistic work. The Court had also appointed Local Commissioners to visit the defendants' premises and the Local Commissioners seized the infringing products.

Justice Amit Bansal proceeded with a summary judgment under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC as defendant no. 3 did not file any written statement and the Court was of the view that the suit did not merit trial.

The Court noted that Eureka has established its goodwill and reputation in Aquaguard and Aqua formative marks.

Comparing Eureka and the defendant's products, the Court noted that the marks used by the defendant on its products are identical to Eureka. It noted that the impugned product has a nearly identical trade dress and has also substantially reproduced Eureka's artistic work in the spares/consumables of the water purification systems.

The Court thus held that a case of trademark and copyright infringement was made out.

The Court further observed that defendant no. 3 took an unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Eureka's trademarks and artistic works. It stated that the defendant deceived consumers by dishonestly associating itself with Eureka. It thus found that a case of passing off was also made out.

In view of the above, the Court issued a permanent injunction, restraining defendant no. 3 from infringing Eureka's trademark and copyright. It further directed defendant no. 3 to pay Rs. 2 lakh damages and costs to Eureka.

Case title: Eureka Forbes Limited vs.Om Sai Enterprises & Ors 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 300