In Devender Kumar Jain & Ors. vs. Solanki Industries Pvt. Ltd., the Delhi Commercial Court on April 9, 2025, granted a permanent injunction restraining Solanki industries Pvt. Ltd. (Solanki) from infringing registered designs of electrical switch owned by Devender Kumar Jain & Ors.

Devender Kumar Jain (sole proprietor of M/s Vihan Electricals) and Vihan Electric Private Limited (Vihan), developed and registered two electrical switch designs, “Sleek Designed Switch” and “Flyover Designed Switch”, in 2014 and 2015, respectively. Vihan approached the Court alleging that Solanki had copied these suit designs and marketed switches with deceptively similar appearance under the brand series Lexi Pro 11 and V-7 Wave Modular, infringing Vihan’s design rights and causing substantial market loss.

Solanki was duly served but failed to file a written statement with the Court. The defense was struck off, and the matter proceeded ex parte. A Local Commissioner appointed by the Court found 5,934 infringing switches and four dies at Solanki’s premises.

The issue-wise findings of the Court are as follows:

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.

This judgment shows that even if the case proceeds ex parte, the Court can still grant significant compensation and strict orders to stop the infringement, especially when counterfeit products are found and the registered designs have a strong market reputation.