CASE BRIEF: ANURAG SANGHI & ORS. v. KNITPRO INTERNATIONAL

 

CASE NAME	Anurag Sanghi & Ors. v. Knitpro International
CITATION	MANU/DE/2025/2019
COURT	Delhi High Court
Bench	Anu Malhotra, J.
Date of Decision	11 June, 2019

INTRODUCTION

Anurag Sanghi & Ors. v. Knitpro International is a significant case that addresses the consolidation of multiple intellectual property suits involving the same parties and subject matter. The dispute centers around the procedural aspects of trying design infringement, passing off, and copyright infringement cases together when they share common facts and circumstances.

The case arose from three separate suits filed by Knitpro International against Anurag Sanghi and Sanghi International regarding knitting needles. The main contention revolved around the alleged imitation of Knitpro’s SYMFONIE knitting needles by the defendants’ LYKKE knitting needles. The complexity of modern intellectual property rights led to the filing of separate suits for design infringement, passing off, and copyright infringement in industrial drawings.

The case explores the delicate balance between maintaining the distinct nature of different intellectual property rights and the practical necessity of trying related cases together to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings. In the context of intellectual property litigation, where a single product or design can invoke multiple forms of protection, the case provides important guidance on procedural efficiency and judicial economy.

FACTS

• When Knitpro International initiated legal proceedings, they filed three separate suits against Anurag Sanghi and Sanghi International regarding their knitting needle products.
• The first suit (CS 918/2017, later renumbered as CS (COMM) 867/2018) was filed alleging piracy of Knitpro’s registered designs in their SYMFONIE knitting needles by the defendants’ LYKKE knitting needles.
• On September 12, 2017, Knitpro International filed two additional suits: 

– TM No. 178/2017 alleging passing off by the defendants involving the same knitting needles

– TM No. 179/2017 alleging infringement of copyright in the industrial drawings of the knitting needles

• The design infringement suit was transferred to the High Court under Section 22(4) of the Designs Act, 2000, and renumbered as CS (COMM) 867/2018.
• During proceedings on May 11, 2018, counsel for both parties informed the court that three suits had been filed before the District Courts, which needed to be heard together in view of the Full Bench judgment in Mohan Lal v. Sona Paint & Hardware.
• Previously, in a similar case (TR. P(C) 15/2015) between the same parties, Knitpro’s counsel had accepted the notice and raised no objection to the transfer of suits to be tried together.
• The defendants filed transfer petitions (TR. P. (C) 93/2018 & 94/2018) seeking withdrawal of TM No. 178/2017 and TM No. 179/2017 from the Court of ADJ-04 to be tried together with CS (COMM) 867/2018.
• All three suits involved the same essential facts regarding the defendants’ LYKKE knitting needles allegedly imitating the plaintiff’s SYMFONIE knitting needles, though each suit focused on different aspects of intellectual property protection.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not multiple suits involving design infringement, passing off, and copyright infringement should be tried together when filed in close proximity and involve the same parties and products.
2. Whether the difference in causes of action prevents the consolidation of such suits.
3. Whether trying such suits together would serve the interests of justice and save judicial time.

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES 

Petitioners’ Arguments:

1. All three suits were based on the same cause of action arising from the same facts and between the same parties.
2. Trying the suits together would save judicial time and costs.
3. Previous court orders had acknowledged that all three suits should be heard together.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. The causes of action in the three suits were distinct and different.
2. Different provisions of law were applicable in each suit.
3. The products in the copyright suit were not identical to those in the design and trademark suits.
4. No provisions existed under the Trademark Act and Copyright Act for transfer similar to Section 22(4) of the Designs Act.

DECISION 

The Delhi High Court examined the necessity of trying multiple intellectual property suits together when they arise from common facts and circumstances. The Court analyzed the precedents set by previous Full Bench decisions, particularly the Mohan Lal case and the Carlsberg Breweries case, which dealt with similar issues of joining different causes of action in intellectual property matters.

The Court emphasized that while different intellectual property rights may have distinct legal bases when violations arise from the same factual matrix, it becomes impractical and potentially counterproductive to try them separately. The Court found that in the present case, all three suits – design infringement, passing off, and copyright infringement – stemmed from the same essential facts involving the same knitting needle products.

Drawing from the Carlsberg Breweries case, the Court reinforced the principle that causes of action cannot be artificially split when they emanate from the same facts. The Court noted that there would be considerable overlap in evidence and witnesses across all three suits, making separate trials an unnecessary burden on judicial resources and the parties involved.

Consequently, the Court ordered the transfer of the passing off suit (TM No. 178/2017) and copyright infringement suit (TM No. 179/2017) from the Court of ADJ-04 to be tried together with the design infringement suit (CS (COMM) 867/2018). This decision was aimed at ensuring consistency in judgments and avoiding the possibility of conflicting decisions arising from separate trials.

ANALYSIS 

The Anurag Sanghi decision represents a significant development in the procedural aspects of intellectual property litigation in India. The judgment recognizes the modern reality of intellectual property rights, where a single product or design often involves multiple forms of protection, and provides a practical framework for handling such overlapping claims efficiently.

The Court’s approach demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the interconnected nature of intellectual property rights. While maintaining the distinct legal character of different intellectual property rights, the judgment acknowledges that their violation often stems from the same commercial activities. This recognition helps streamline litigation and prevent the unnecessary multiplication of proceedings.

The decision builds upon and clarifies previous precedents, particularly the Mohan Lal and Carlsberg Breweries cases, creating a comprehensive framework for handling multiple intellectual property suits. It establishes clear guidelines for determining when suits should be tried together, focusing on the commonality of facts, parties, and evidence rather than the technical distinctions between different forms of intellectual property protection.

From a practical perspective, the judgment promotes judicial economy and efficiency. Allowing related intellectual property suits to be tried together reduces the burden on both the judiciary and the parties involved. This approach not only saves time and resources but also helps ensure consistency in decisions across different aspects of intellectual property protection.

The case sets an important precedent for future intellectual property litigation, particularly in situations involving multiple rights violations. It provides a balanced approach that respects the distinct nature of different intellectual property rights while recognizing the practical benefits of consolidated trials. This interpretation offers valuable guidance for courts dealing with complex intellectual property disputes involving multiple causes of action.