Prior user rights in specific goods override trademark registrations of well-known marks for different classes.

The Appellants (Kent RO) adopted the mark ‘KENT’ for oil meters in 1988

launched RO water purifiers under the same mark in 1999

They hold registrations in Class 11 specifically for water purifiers

The Respondents (Kent Cables) adopted ‘KENT’ for electrical wires/cables in 1984, obtained registration in 1986

applied for registration for ‘fans’ in Class 11 in 1998

In 2022, both parties filed cross-suits: Kent RO sought to restrain the Respondents from using ‘KENT’ for fans and kitchen appliances, while Kent Cables sought to restrain Kent RO from launching fans under ‘KENT’

The Single Judge restrained Kent RO from selling fans, finding Kent Cables to be the prior user for that specific product

Kent RO appealed.

The Court applied Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which defines infringement through identity/similarity of marks and goods likely to cause confusion

It further relied on Section 34 of the Act, which protects the "vested rights" of a prior continuous user against a registered proprietor

The principle of "acquiescence" was applied, where a proprietor who stays dormant despite knowledge of an infringement loses the right to an injunction

Regarding appellate intervention, the court followed the doctrine in *Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd.*, which mandates that appellate courts should not interfere with a lower court's discretionary interlocutory order unless it is perverse, arbitrary, or contrary to law

The Court observed that while Kent RO has a massive reputation in water purifiers, its Class 11 registrations are specific to purifiers and do not encompass fans

The Court found that fans are not "cognate or allied" to water purifiers merely by sharing a numerical Class (Class 11)

Conversely, the Respondents demonstrated bona fide adoption of ‘KENT’ in 1984 for electrical wires—predating Kent RO's 1988 adoption—and showed continuous use for fans since at least 2009

The Court held that Kent RO's failure to sue after issuing a cease-and-desist notice in 2011 constituted acquiescence, as they allowed the Respondents to build a business in fans for over a decade

The Court reasoned that since fans are a natural progression for an electrical cable manufacturer, the Respondents' use was not "without due cause" under Section 29(4)

the Respondents are prior users of the mark ‘KENT’ in the specific category of fans

Kent RO is not entitled to an injunction due to acquiescence and delay

Kent RO is rightly restrained from launching fans under ‘KENT’ to prevent confusion, as the Respondents established prior goodwill in that specific trade

The Court found no perversity in the Single Judge’s exercise of discretion