Delhi High Court Bars Sale Of Water Purifiers Infringing 'KENT' Trademark And Design

The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of Kent RO Systems Ltd., restraining several entities from making or selling water purifiers that infringe its “KENT” trademark and registered design.

In a judgment delivered on March 13, 2026, Justice Jyoti Singh recorded that the defendants did not appear to contest the case and were proceeded against ex parte. The material placed on record, the Court noted, showed that the plaintiffs' marks and design had been copied.

The court pointed out that “KENT” is a declared well-known trademark and therefore commands a high degree of protection. Examining the competing marks, it found that they were used for identical products and moved through the same trade channels, making confusion among consumers likely.

The suit had been filed by Kent RO Systems Ltd. against Kanchan Singh and other sellers offering the allegedly infringing products on the e-commerce platform IndiaMart. It sought a permanent injunction on grounds of trademark and design infringement

The RO Company contended that the sellers were using the mark “KENT” and selling water purifiers bearing marks and configurations deceptively similar to their products, including the use of the name “AQUA GRAND+,” which was alleged to be similar to the plaintiffs' “KENT GRAND+ ZWW.” They also relied on their registered Design No. 312406, which protects the aesthetic configuration of their water purifiers.

The company told the Court that it has used the “KENT” mark since 1988, building significant goodwill through sustained sales, advertising campaigns, and endorsements by well-known celebrities.

Addressing infringement, the court said, “There is no gainsaying that since Plaintiff No.2 has registrations in trademark KENT and its formative marks and Plaintiff No. 1 is the authorised and permitted user, they are entitled to exclusive use of the marks and restrain third parties from infringement by virtue of Section 28 of the 1999 Act.”

It also took note of the fact that, despite being served, the sellers neither filed written statements nor took part in the proceedings. It observed that in these circumstances, there was “no real prospect of defending the claims of the Plaintiffs.”

Holding that the use of the impugned marks in relation to identical goods amounted to infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, the court decreed the suit and granted a permanent injunction. This restrained the defendants from using the “KENT” mark or any deceptively similar marks.

“KENT has been declared as a well-known mark and is entitled to a high degree of protection,” the court reiterated.