Bengaluru: What may be seen as a major setback for Intex at the closure of 2016, the Delhi high court has barred the leading homegrown handset maker from selling Aqua branded phones and accessories apropos a trademark infringement plea of market rival Aqua Mobiles.
The judgement has been delivered on December 24 and will come into force after two weeks to enable the company dispose of its current stocks, Justice GS Sistani said, according to a copy of the order. The court also says the current order and observations are in the “context of a prima facie view.”
Intex already has a big distribution network across the country, with 1500 distributors, 80000+ dealers and 75 branded stores Intex Smart World covering 63 cities – and this may land the company into deeper trouble.
The court said the “defendants, their directors, officers, franchisees, agents, employees, servants, and/or any other person acting for and on their behalf are restrained from using the infringing trademark ‘Aqua’ or any other deceptively similar trademark in respect of mobile phones/cellular phones and their accessories, till the disposal of the suit.”
In the last quarter Intex went through a phase of loss of senior management and an exodus of 200 employees. This court order surely came as a shock to the already grappling company with Aqua series makes up for 90 per cent of Intex’s quarterly shipments, and implementation of the order means a crash in the company’s sales.
Aqua Mobiles, in its plea, claims that it has been selling ‘Aqua’ branded mobiles in India since 2009 and further expanded to other segments such as earphones, mobile chargers, USB cables and mobile batteries. The company remarked that Intex assumed an identical trademark to “have a free ride on its (Aqua Mobiles) goodwill”. Aqua Mobiles claims in its lawsuit that Intex also used their pictorial logo for ‘Aqua’ illegally.
Intex retaliated that ‘Aqua’ as trademark was unable of being notable for goods of Aqua Mobiles. Therefore, Aqua Mobiles cannot claim rights over trademark protection.
The court however slammed this argument saying “The plaintiffs/applicants, having established a strong prima facie case for priority showing prior use and goodwill in the mark ‘Aqua’ are entitled to an interim injunction against the defendants.”