Case Name: Devendra Kumar Jain& Ors. V. Solanki Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: CS (Comm.) No. 6/2023
Court: Delhi Commercial Court (District Courts, Delhi)
Date of Judgment: April 9, 2025
Coram / Judges: Sh. Amit Kumar, District Judge (Commercial Court-01), North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi
ABSTRACT
This case examines registered design right enforcement under the Designs Act, 2000, in India’s electric appliances industry. On April 9, 2025, the Delhi Commercial Court granted permanent injunction against Solanki Industries Pvt. Ltd., restraining it from making, offering for sale or selling electric switches that infringe Devender Kumar Jain & Ors. (trading as Vihan Electric Private Limited) registered designs. The court also awarded damages and ordered destruction of infringing products and moulds. The case illustrates how quick ‘ex parte’ hearings and the use of a Local Commissioner can work in favour of those bringing a design infringement suit.. It also emphasizes that regular business use of a registered design will enhance claims to an injunction and compensation.
INTRODUCTION
Design protection under the Designs Act, 2000 is one of the lesser litigated branches of Indian intellectual property law, often overshadowed by trademark and copyright disputes. But in the competitive manufacturing and consumer goods sector, registered designs are a critical commercial asset – especially for small and medium enterprises who invest in the aesthetics and functionality of their products to stand out.
Our present case provides a dramatic example of how Indian commercial courts can be harnessed to definitively protect design rights. Plaintiffs, owners of a renowned brand of electrical switches, secured an impressive win with a permanent injunction, damages and destruction order against a copycat competitor who had stolen their switch designs wholesale. The judgement also reveals the importance of the local commissioner route in securing and safeguarding evidence in IP cases.
FACTS
Devender Kumar Jain is the sole proprietor of M/s Vihan Electricals. Together with Vihan Electric Private Limited (collectively referred to as “Vihan” or the plaintiffs), he developed two distinct electrical switch designs — the “Sleek Designed Switch” and the “Flyover Designed Switch” — which were duly registered under the Designs Act, 2000 in 2014 and 2015, respectively.
Vihan built a substantial market presence and commercial reputation around these designs over the subsequent years. The plaintiffs discovered that Solanki Industries Pvt. Ltd. (“Solanki”) had copied the suit designs and was commercially marketing electrical switches bearing a deceptively similar appearance under its brand series “Lexi Pro 11” and “V-7 Wave Modular.” The infringing products were found to be openly advertised in Solanki’s product catalogue.
Vihan filed a suit before the Delhi Commercial Court seeking permanent injunction, damages, and ancillary reliefs for design infringement. Solanki was duly served with the Court’s process but failed to file a written statement in response. Consequently, the defence was struck off and the matter proceeded ex parte.
The Court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect Solanki’s premises. The Commissioner’s report revealed the recovery of 5,934 infringing switches and four manufacturing dies from Solanki’s place of business.
ISSUES
The Court framed and adjudicated the following key issues:
Issue (i): Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a permanent injunction restraining Solanki from infringing the registered designs?
Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to damages, and if so, in what quantum?
Issue (iii): Whether the infringing goods and manufacturing dies recovered from Solanki’s premises were liable to be destroyed?
REASONING
Issue (i) – Permanent injunction: The Court arrived at its judgment after carefully examining the arguments and evidence produced. Vihan proved ownership of registered designs, and the infringement by Solanki was proved through an unchallenged report of the Local Commissioner. Solanki admittedly used similar designs, as shown in their catalogue. Vihan continuously used the suit designs and established a reputation in the market for them. Accordingly, the Court granted a permanent injunction against Solanki.
Issue (ii) – Damages: Based on recovery of huge quantity of switches and four dyes for making the infringing switches from Solanki, and precedents from the Delhi High Court (Imaging Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v M/s. Green Accessories through its proprietor and Anr. and M/s. Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. v. Shivani Cosmetics) where damages were awarded based on quantum of counterfeit product seized, the Court awarded INR 6,00,000 (~USD 7,200) as damages to Vihan.
Issue (iii) – Rendition of Accounts: As Vihan did not summon Solanki’s account books or provide evidence about the duration of infringement, the rendition of accounts was not granted. The Court also observed that typically, in an ex-parte matter, rendition of accounts is not granted as the defendant is not present to produce the books.
In summary, the suit was decided in favour of Vihan and against Solanki. Solanki was directed to deliver the infringing goods to Vihan and remove these infringing items’ listings from e-commerce platforms.
CRITIQUE
I am impressed by the brevity of the order (in the face of a difficult defendant). Solanki’s unwillingness to enter appearance / file written statements, despite proper service, is a pattern we have seen before in design infringement cases, where defendants may have no defence and merely wish to drag out the case. It is heartening that the Court took recourse to striking off the defence and going ahead on the basis of available evidence, keeping in mind the spirit of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and the larger objective of speedy resolution of IP disputes.
I am especially impressed with the use of the Local Commissioner route. Indian IP courts have honed this procedure over the years to allow right holders to gather live evidence of infringement (particularly in cases where post-suit destruction of evidence is real possibility), and the recovery of both the finished infringing goods and the manufacturing dies from Solanki’s premises was crucial in showing the scale and intent of the infringement, and thus in justifying not only an injunction but also reasonable damages.
My only quibble is with the scantiness of reasons on quantum of damages as per the available summary of the order. As I have mentioned elsewhere, design infringement cases in India tend towards under compensation since courts can be cautious about quantum of damages without extensive financials from the defendant, which are rarely forthcoming.
Additionally, while the Court rightly focused on the visual similarity between the suit designs and the infringing products, the judgment could have benefited from a detailed analysis of the “eye of the judge” test and the informed user/consumer standard developed in earlier Indian design infringement decisions, such as Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. v. Wyeth Ltd. This would have strengthened the precedential value of the ruling.
IMPACT
With its significance for both design right owners in India generally, and the manufacturing and consumer goods industries specifically, this judgement is likely to have far reaching effects. First, it reinforces that registered designs are valuable assets that will be protected with powerful remedies such as permanent injunctions and destruction orders.
Second, it underscores how useful the ‘Local Commissioner’ mechanism can be as an investigatory device in design infringement suits, incentivising right-holders to obtain ex parte orders for inspection early on in the legal process.
Third, and arguably most important, the case sends out a clear message that Indian commercial courts are prepared to act promptly, even if defendants opt not to appear. This lessens the likelihood of infringing parties engaging in delays or stalling tactics in court and strengthens the overall deterrent effect of design piracy. For small and medium enterprises (SMEs) such as Vihan, whose competitiveness depends critically on their design portfolio, the guarantee of legal protection is commercially critical.
The judgment could further stimulate greater registration of designs among Indian manufacturers, many of whom currently ignore design as an IP asset in favour of patents and trademarks, once the fact that registered designs can be legally enforced becomes better known
CONCLUSION
Devender Kumar Jain & Ors. v. Solanki Industries Pvt. Ltd. is a textbook example of successful design right enforcement through the Indian commercial court system. The Delhi Commercial Court’s grant of a permanent injunction, damages, and destruction order — based on robust evidence secured through the Local Commissioner mechanism — demonstrates the potency of the remedial framework available to registered design holders under the Designs Act, 2000.
The case reinforces three core propositions: that consistent commercial use of a registered design strengthens the holder’s claim to all available remedies; that the Local Commissioner is an indispensable tool in securing and preserving evidence in design infringement matters; and that ex parte proceedings, when justified by a defendant’s contumacious conduct, do not diminish the quality or legitimacy of the Court’s adjudication.
In an increasingly competitive manufacturing landscape, where design copying is a persistent commercial menace, this judgment provides welcome reassurance that Indian courts are equipped and willing to act swiftly and decisively in defence of registered design rights.
REFERENCES
The Designs Act, 2000 (Act No. 16 of 2000), Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India.
The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (Act No. 4 of 2016), Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India.
The Designs Rules, 2001, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India.
Devender Kumar Jain & Ors. v. Solanki Industries Pvt. Ltd., Delhi Commercial Court, decided April 9, 2025 (unreported). Case analysis: Sandesh Kudur Sastry, ‘Enforcement of Design Rights in Electrical Switches: A Delhi Commercial Court Ruling’, K&S Partners Case Law Update (July 3, 2025).
Crocs Inc. USA v. Bata India Ltd. & Ors., CS(COMM) 714/2016, Delhi High Court — on use of Local Commissioner in design infringement suits and the scope of ex parte relief.
Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. Videocon Industries Ltd., AIR 2014 Bom 103 — on ownership and subsistence of design rights and the scope of infringement.
WIPO, ‘The Economic Importance of Industrial Designs’ (WIPO Publication No. 2022/14, Geneva: WIPO, 2022) — on the commercial value of registered designs for SMEs.
Devendra Kumar Jain & Ors. V. Solanki Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2025)
Khushi Jain
Asian Law College
Case Name: Devendra Kumar Jain& Ors. V. Solanki Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: CS (Comm.) No. 6/2023
Court: Delhi Commercial Court (District Courts, Delhi)
Date of Judgment: April 9, 2025
Coram / Judges: Sh. Amit Kumar, District Judge (Commercial Court-01), North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi
ABSTRACT
This case examines registered design right enforcement under the Designs Act, 2000, in India’s electric appliances industry. On April 9, 2025, the Delhi Commercial Court granted permanent injunction against Solanki Industries Pvt. Ltd., restraining it from making, offering for sale or selling electric switches that infringe Devender Kumar Jain & Ors. (trading as Vihan Electric Private Limited) registered designs. The court also awarded damages and ordered destruction of infringing products and moulds. The case illustrates how quick ‘ex parte’ hearings and the use of a Local Commissioner can work in favour of those bringing a design infringement suit.. It also emphasizes that regular business use of a registered design will enhance claims to an injunction and compensation.
INTRODUCTION
Design protection under the Designs Act, 2000 is one of the lesser litigated branches of Indian intellectual property law, often overshadowed by trademark and copyright disputes. But in the competitive manufacturing and consumer goods sector, registered designs are a critical commercial asset – especially for small and medium enterprises who invest in the aesthetics and functionality of their products to stand out.
Our present case provides a dramatic example of how Indian commercial courts can be harnessed to definitively protect design rights. Plaintiffs, owners of a renowned brand of electrical switches, secured an impressive win with a permanent injunction, damages and destruction order against a copycat competitor who had stolen their switch designs wholesale. The judgement also reveals the importance of the local commissioner route in securing and safeguarding evidence in IP cases.
FACTS
Devender Kumar Jain is the sole proprietor of M/s Vihan Electricals. Together with Vihan Electric Private Limited (collectively referred to as “Vihan” or the plaintiffs), he developed two distinct electrical switch designs — the “Sleek Designed Switch” and the “Flyover Designed Switch” — which were duly registered under the Designs Act, 2000 in 2014 and 2015, respectively.
Vihan built a substantial market presence and commercial reputation around these designs over the subsequent years. The plaintiffs discovered that Solanki Industries Pvt. Ltd. (“Solanki”) had copied the suit designs and was commercially marketing electrical switches bearing a deceptively similar appearance under its brand series “Lexi Pro 11” and “V-7 Wave Modular.” The infringing products were found to be openly advertised in Solanki’s product catalogue.
Vihan filed a suit before the Delhi Commercial Court seeking permanent injunction, damages, and ancillary reliefs for design infringement. Solanki was duly served with the Court’s process but failed to file a written statement in response. Consequently, the defence was struck off and the matter proceeded ex parte.
The Court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect Solanki’s premises. The Commissioner’s report revealed the recovery of 5,934 infringing switches and four manufacturing dies from Solanki’s place of business.
ISSUES
The Court framed and adjudicated the following key issues:
Issue (i): Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a permanent injunction restraining Solanki from infringing the registered designs?
Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to damages, and if so, in what quantum?
Issue (iii): Whether the infringing goods and manufacturing dies recovered from Solanki’s premises were liable to be destroyed?
REASONING
Issue (i) – Permanent injunction: The Court arrived at its judgment after carefully examining the arguments and evidence produced. Vihan proved ownership of registered designs, and the infringement by Solanki was proved through an unchallenged report of the Local Commissioner. Solanki admittedly used similar designs, as shown in their catalogue. Vihan continuously used the suit designs and established a reputation in the market for them. Accordingly, the Court granted a permanent injunction against Solanki.
Issue (ii) – Damages: Based on recovery of huge quantity of switches and four dyes for making the infringing switches from Solanki, and precedents from the Delhi High Court (Imaging Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v M/s. Green Accessories through its proprietor and Anr. and M/s. Blue Heaven Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. v. Shivani Cosmetics) where damages were awarded based on quantum of counterfeit product seized, the Court awarded INR 6,00,000 (~USD 7,200) as damages to Vihan.
Issue (iii) – Rendition of Accounts: As Vihan did not summon Solanki’s account books or provide evidence about the duration of infringement, the rendition of accounts was not granted. The Court also observed that typically, in an ex-parte matter, rendition of accounts is not granted as the defendant is not present to produce the books.
In summary, the suit was decided in favour of Vihan and against Solanki. Solanki was directed to deliver the infringing goods to Vihan and remove these infringing items’ listings from e-commerce platforms.
CRITIQUE
I am impressed by the brevity of the order (in the face of a difficult defendant). Solanki’s unwillingness to enter appearance / file written statements, despite proper service, is a pattern we have seen before in design infringement cases, where defendants may have no defence and merely wish to drag out the case. It is heartening that the Court took recourse to striking off the defence and going ahead on the basis of available evidence, keeping in mind the spirit of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and the larger objective of speedy resolution of IP disputes.
I am especially impressed with the use of the Local Commissioner route. Indian IP courts have honed this procedure over the years to allow right holders to gather live evidence of infringement (particularly in cases where post-suit destruction of evidence is real possibility), and the recovery of both the finished infringing goods and the manufacturing dies from Solanki’s premises was crucial in showing the scale and intent of the infringement, and thus in justifying not only an injunction but also reasonable damages.
My only quibble is with the scantiness of reasons on quantum of damages as per the available summary of the order. As I have mentioned elsewhere, design infringement cases in India tend towards under compensation since courts can be cautious about quantum of damages without extensive financials from the defendant, which are rarely forthcoming.
Additionally, while the Court rightly focused on the visual similarity between the suit designs and the infringing products, the judgment could have benefited from a detailed analysis of the “eye of the judge” test and the informed user/consumer standard developed in earlier Indian design infringement decisions, such as Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. v. Wyeth Ltd. This would have strengthened the precedential value of the ruling.
IMPACT
With its significance for both design right owners in India generally, and the manufacturing and consumer goods industries specifically, this judgement is likely to have far reaching effects. First, it reinforces that registered designs are valuable assets that will be protected with powerful remedies such as permanent injunctions and destruction orders.
Second, it underscores how useful the ‘Local Commissioner’ mechanism can be as an investigatory device in design infringement suits, incentivising right-holders to obtain ex parte orders for inspection early on in the legal process.
Third, and arguably most important, the case sends out a clear message that Indian commercial courts are prepared to act promptly, even if defendants opt not to appear. This lessens the likelihood of infringing parties engaging in delays or stalling tactics in court and strengthens the overall deterrent effect of design piracy. For small and medium enterprises (SMEs) such as Vihan, whose competitiveness depends critically on their design portfolio, the guarantee of legal protection is commercially critical.
The judgment could further stimulate greater registration of designs among Indian manufacturers, many of whom currently ignore design as an IP asset in favour of patents and trademarks, once the fact that registered designs can be legally enforced becomes better known
CONCLUSION
Devender Kumar Jain & Ors. v. Solanki Industries Pvt. Ltd. is a textbook example of successful design right enforcement through the Indian commercial court system. The Delhi Commercial Court’s grant of a permanent injunction, damages, and destruction order — based on robust evidence secured through the Local Commissioner mechanism — demonstrates the potency of the remedial framework available to registered design holders under the Designs Act, 2000.
The case reinforces three core propositions: that consistent commercial use of a registered design strengthens the holder’s claim to all available remedies; that the Local Commissioner is an indispensable tool in securing and preserving evidence in design infringement matters; and that ex parte proceedings, when justified by a defendant’s contumacious conduct, do not diminish the quality or legitimacy of the Court’s adjudication.
In an increasingly competitive manufacturing landscape, where design copying is a persistent commercial menace, this judgment provides welcome reassurance that Indian courts are equipped and willing to act swiftly and decisively in defence of registered design rights.
REFERENCES
The Designs Act, 2000 (Act No. 16 of 2000), Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India.
The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (Act No. 4 of 2016), Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India.
The Designs Rules, 2001, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India.
Devender Kumar Jain & Ors. v. Solanki Industries Pvt. Ltd., Delhi Commercial Court, decided April 9, 2025 (unreported). Case analysis: Sandesh Kudur Sastry, ‘Enforcement of Design Rights in Electrical Switches: A Delhi Commercial Court Ruling’, K&S Partners Case Law Update (July 3, 2025).
Crocs Inc. USA v. Bata India Ltd. & Ors., CS(COMM) 714/2016, Delhi High Court — on use of Local Commissioner in design infringement suits and the scope of ex parte relief.
Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. Videocon Industries Ltd., AIR 2014 Bom 103 — on ownership and subsistence of design rights and the scope of infringement.
WIPO, ‘The Economic Importance of Industrial Designs’ (WIPO Publication No. 2022/14, Geneva: WIPO, 2022) — on the commercial value of registered designs for SMEs.
Share Us On Socials
Other Recent Blog Posts
THE POTATO PATENT BATTLE
CASE NAME: PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Kavitha Kuruganti CITATION: C.A. (COMM.IPD-PV) 2/2022 & IAs 7898/2022 & 7900/2022, decided on 5 July 2023 COURT:
OWNING YOUR DIGITAL DOPPELGANGER
ABSTRACT Who owns your digital twin, and who protects it? Imagine a doppelganger of yourself or your machine, not in flesh and blood but in
FROM PITCH TO PIRACY
PROTECTING CREATIVE EXPRESSION CASE NAME: Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Sundial Communications Pvt. Ltd. CITATION: 2003 (5) BOM CR 404; 2003 (3) MHLJ 695; 2003 (27)
PROTECTING THE BLUEPRINT
SILICON’S SILENT BATTLE ABSTRACT What happens when the invisible blueprint of our digital age the chip layout becomes the target of piracy? Who owns the
BOTTLE BATTLES
TRADE DRESS AND SHAPE MARKS IN VODKA BRANDING CASE NAME: Gorbatschow Wodka KG v. John Distilleries Ltd. CITATION: 2011 (47) PTC 100 (Bom); Notice of
FROM LAUGHTER TO LAWSUITS
THE COPYRIGHT STORY BEHIND MEMES Abstract People everywhere laugh at their phones not because of the device, but because someone has cleverly mocked a scenario