INTRODUCTION

Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Ltd. v. CG Power and Industrial Solutions Ltd. & Ors. addresses significant issues related to design infringement, trademark rights, and intellectual property protection following a corporate demerger. The case examines the rights and obligations arising from a separation of business units where intellectual property ownership and usage rights were transferred through formal agreements. It highlights the challenges in enforcing intellectual property rights where previously associated business entities continue to operate in similar market segments.

The plaintiff, Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited (CGCEL), was vested with exclusive rights over well-known trademarks containing “CROMPTON” and “CROMPTON GREAVES” through demerger agreements. The defendant, CG Power and Industrial Solutions Limited (CG PISL), continued business operations in related sectors but was contractually prohibited from using these marks. The dispute centers on allegations that the defendant and its channel partners continued using the plaintiff’s registered trademarks and designs, particularly in the field of pump sets.

This case is particularly significant in the context of India’s evolving corporate and intellectual property landscape, where business restructuring has become increasingly common. It raises important questions about the downstream enforcement of intellectual property rights after formal separation agreements, especially when dealing with established brand identities that have substantial consumer recognition. The court’s approach reflects the delicate balance between protecting legitimate intellectual property rights and acknowledging the practical challenges of implementing clear brand separation throughout extensive distribution networks.

FACTS

• The consumer product business of erstwhile Crompton Greaves Limited (CGL) was demerged pursuant to an order dated November 20, 2015, passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, approving/sanctioning a Scheme of Arrangement under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956.
• The Scheme of Arrangement became effective on January 1, 2016, when the High Court order, along with the Scheme of Arrangement, was filed with the Registrar of Companies.
• Pursuant to the demerger, CGL’s consumer product business was transferred to Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited (CGCEL), the resulting company.
• By virtue of a ‘Brand Transfer Agreement’ and a ‘Non-Compete and Non-Solicitation Agreement’, both dated July 20, 2015, the plaintiff (CGCEL) was vested with exclusive rights over well-known trademarks with the word “CROMPTON” and “CROMPTON GREAVES”, especially in the field of pump sets.
• The plaintiff was also the registered proprietor of a design for a submersible, mono-block and centrifugal pump, registered under number 289880 dated January 6, 2017, under the Designs Act, 2000.
• In April 2021, the plaintiff discovered that Defendant No. 1 (CG PISL) had allegedly started manufacturing/marketing pump sets using the word “CROMPTON PUMPS” on their products and/or in promotional material.
• The plaintiff communicated this concern to the defendant, who responded via email dated April 26, 2021, indicating they had advised their dealers/channel partners to immediately stop using the word “CROMPTON” and/or “CROMPTON PUMPS” in any CG products and/or promotional materials.
• Despite this communication, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants’ products continued to be sold under the plaintiff’s trade name on e-commerce platforms such as Amazon.in, where searches for “CROMPTON GREAVES Pumps” returned the defendants’ products.

ISSUES

1. Whether the defendant’s use of the trademark “CROMPTON” and/or “CROMPTON GREAVES” in relation to pump sets constituted trademark infringement and passing off.
2. Whether the defendants’ pump products infringed the plaintiff’s registered design under number 289880 dated January 6, 2017.
3. Whether the defendants’ dealers, distributors, and channel partners’ use of the plaintiff’s trademarks could be attributed to the defendants.
4. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to interim relief pending full adjudication of the suit.

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES 

Plaintiff’s Arguments:

1. Asserted exclusive rights over the trademarks “CROMPTON” and “CROMPTON GREAVES” in the field of pump sets by virtue of the Brand Transfer Agreement and Non-Compete and Non-Solicitation Agreement.
2. Claimed that the defendants had fraudulently imitated the plaintiff’s registered design for pump products by copying all the essential features, get-up, layout, overall appearance, and unique features.
3. Argued that despite the defendant’s assurances, their products continued to be sold under the plaintiff’s trade name on e-commerce platforms.
4. Contended that the defendants were attempting to show association with the plaintiff, its reputation, and goodwill to springboard their activities in the consumer electrical market.

Defendants’ Arguments:

1. Refuted the allegations and stated that Defendant No. 1 did not claim any right over the trade name “CROMPTON” or “CROMPTON GREAVES.”
2. Affirmed that they had advised their channel partners/dealers and distributors not to use the trademarks/brand name “CROMPTON” or “CROMPTON GREAVES.”
3. Asserted that Defendant No. 1 had never used the trade name “CROMPTON” or “CROMPTON GREAVES” on any of their products.
4. Expressed willingness to send further communications to channel partners reinforcing the prohibition against using the plaintiff’s trademarks.

DECISION

The Delhi High Court examined the alleged infringement of intellectual property rights in the case of Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Ltd. v. CG Power and Industrial Solutions Ltd., which dealt with trademark and design infringement following a corporate demerger. The plaintiff, CGCEL, claimed exclusive rights to the “CROMPTON” and “CROMPTON GREAVES” trademarks, particularly in relation to pump sets, and alleged that the defendants were continuing to use these marks despite formal agreements prohibiting such use.

After hearing both parties, the Court took note of the defendant’s counsel’s statement that Defendant No. 1 did not claim any rights over the trade names “CROMPTON” or “CROMPTON GREAVES” and had advised their channel partners not to use these marks. The Court observed that despite previous communications from the defendants to their distribution network, the plaintiff had provided evidence showing continued use of the protected trademarks in online marketplace listings.

Taking a balanced approach, the Court issued an interim direction rather than a full injunction. It directed Defendant No. 1 to send a communication to its channel partners, dealers, and distributors advising them not to use the trade name “CROMPTON” or “CROMPTON GREAVES” in any manner whatsoever, including in online advertising on e-commerce platforms. The Court deferred consideration of the remaining prayers in the application until after the completion of pleadings, recognizing that a fuller assessment would be required after both parties had fully presented their cases.

The Court also recognized the potential for resolution through alternative dispute resolution, directing the parties to appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre with a designated senior counsel mediator. This approach reflected the Court’s preference for facilitating negotiated solutions in complex commercial disputes involving ongoing business relationships.

LATEST ORDER

On January 12, 2024, Justice Anish Dayal issued the most recent order in this ongoing litigation. The counsel for both parties informed the Court that they were still attempting to settle the disputes between them and requested an adjournment. Acknowledging these efforts, the Court adjourned the matter to April 22, 2024. The Court also expressly provided that if the parties were able to arrive at an amicable settlement, they would be at liberty to approach the Court with an appropriate application. This latest order indicates that after more than two years of litigation, the parties are actively pursuing settlement discussions, suggesting they may be close to resolving their intellectual property disputes outside the courtroom.

ANALYSIS

The Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Ltd. case offers valuable insights into the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the context of corporate reorganizations. The Court’s approach demonstrates a nuanced understanding of the practical challenges involved in implementing clear brand separation following a demerger, particularly when dealing with established trademarks that enjoy significant market recognition. By acknowledging the defendant’s willingness to reinforce instructions to their distribution network while stopping short of issuing a sweeping injunction, the Court struck a balance between protecting the plaintiff’s legitimate IP rights and allowing the defendant to implement practical compliance measures.

The case highlights the downstream challenges of IP enforcement, particularly in expansive distribution networks where old habits and associations may persist despite formal agreements at the corporate level. It underscores the importance of ongoing vigilance and proactive measures by both the rights holder and the restricted entity to ensure compliance throughout their business ecosystems. The Court’s recognition that third-party actions (distributors and dealers) could potentially create liability for the defendant company emphasizes the responsibilities associated with trademark usage across the entire supply chain.

From a broader perspective, this decision contributes meaningfully to India’s evolving jurisprudence on intellectual property rights following corporate restructuring. It acknowledges that while contractual assignments of IP rights are binding and enforceable, their practical implementation often requires ongoing efforts and communication. The Court’s preference for mediation also reflects a pragmatic recognition that complex business relationships may benefit from negotiated solutions that address not only legal compliance but also commercial realities.

The continued settlement discussions, as evidenced by the January 2024 order, suggest that the parties themselves recognize the advantages of a mutually acceptable resolution. This trajectory aligns with global trends in IP dispute resolution, where collaborative approaches often yield more efficient outcomes than protracted litigation. It also demonstrates the judiciary’s role in facilitating such resolutions while maintaining the legal framework that protects established intellectual property rights.

In essence, the Court’s handling of this case provides a template for addressing similar disputes arising from corporate demergers, balancing robust protection of transferred IP rights with practical considerations of implementation and enforcement. It establishes important guidance for companies undergoing restructuring about the importance of clear IP provisions and ongoing compliance measures throughout their business operations.