Mr. Kunal Vats and Ms. Tanya Arora, Advocates v. DIGISMART ELECTRICALS ORS

Through: Mr. Kamal Garg and Mr. Sohit, Advocates for D-1 & D-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL % O R D E R 09.04.2025 CS(COMM) 419/2023 and I.A. 9383/2025 (u/O XXIII Rule 3 seeking recordal of the settlement arrived at between the parties) 1. The present suit has been filed seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the plaintiff’s ceiling fans designs, bearing registrations no.280666, 328605 and 277328, , sold by the plaintiff under the names ‘ENTICER’, ‘ENTICER ART-NS STONE’ and ‘AARIA’ respectively, along with other ancillary reliefs. 2. The plaintiff is a prominent electronics manufacturing and distribution company with a strong global presence, specializing in a wide range of products including circuit protection devices, cables, motors, fans, and switches etc. CS(COMM) 419/2023 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/04/2025 at 12:25:46

3. It is stated that the defendant no.1 is engaged in the business of selling fans under the name ‘ELEGANT PEARL IVORY’ which are similar to the plaintiff’s ‘ENTICER’ design. The defendant no.2 is an associated entity, also dealing in infringing products bearing the name ‘ENERGIA’ which imitates the plaintiff’s ‘AARIA’ and ‘ENTICER ART-NS STONE’ designs. It is averred that both the defendants are involved in the manufacture, distribution, and/or sale of ceiling fans that copy the plaintiff’s registered designs under different product names. 4. Defendant no.3 is engaged in the distribution and sale of the impugned Products across various markets. It is stated that the defendant no.3 is a habitual offender, who had, in the past imitated plaintiff’s designs, for which an earlier suit being CS (COMM) No. 964/2018 was instituted and was ultimately decreed on consent terms on 25th July, 2018 in favour of the plaintiff. Despite the aforesaid decree, defendant no.3 continues to deal in products for which they have already been injuncted. 5. Summons in the present suit was issued on 2nd June 2023 and on the same date, the predecessor bench granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. 6. This joint application [I.A. 9383/2025] under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff and defendants no.1 and 2 to record terms of settlement arrived at between the parties. 7. The application has been duly signed by the authorised signatories of the parties and is duly supported by affidavits of the plaintiff and defendants no.1 and 2. 8. The terms of the settlement are described in paragraph 4 of the CS(COMM) 419/2023 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/04/2025 at 12:25:46 I have gone through the terms of the Settlement Agreement and find application. 9. the same to be lawful. 10. As per Clause 4(vii) of the application, defendants no.1 and 2 have paid a sum of ₹30,000/- to Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. 11. The parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the settlement. 12. In light of the order passed above, the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants no.1 and 2 in terms of settlement recorded in the application. The aforesaid application shall form part of the decree. 13. Counsel for the plaintiff has handed over screenshot from the website of defendant no.1 to the counsel for defendant no.1 which shows certain models, infringing of the plaintiff i.e., Galaxy and Corolla, are still showing on the defendants’ website. 13.1. Counsel for the defendants no.1 and 2 submit that the same shall be taken down immediately. 14. Despite service on 22nd July 2023, defendant no.3 has not entered appearance in the matter. The right of defendant no.3 to file written statement already stands closed. 15. In view of the fact that no written statement has been filed on behalf of the defendant no.3, all the averments made in the plaint have to be taken to be admitted. Further, since no affidavit of admission/denial has been filed on behalf of the defendant no.3 in respect of the documents filed with the plaint, in terms of Rule 3 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules 2018, the same are deemed to have been admitted. Therefore, in my opinion, this suit CS(COMM) 419/2023 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/04/2025 at 12:25:46 does not merit trial and the suit is capable of being decreed in terms of Order VIII Rule 10 of CPC. 16. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances a decree of permanent injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant no.3 as well. 17. Taking into account the Settlement recorded between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 and 2, the defendant no.3 shall pay cost of ₹50,000/- to Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. 18. Let the decree sheet be drawn up in the above terms. 19. In view of the fact that the matter has been settled, the Registry is directed to issue a certificate of refund of 100% of the Court Fees in favour of the plaintiff, in terms of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870. APRIL 9, 2025/ds AMIT BANSAL, J CS(COMM) 419/2023 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/04/2025 at 12:25:46