Summary
In the case of Jyothy Labs Limited vs Gautam Kumar, the Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from tampering with MAXO mosquito repellent machines and refills to sell them as spy cameras. The court held that such use amounted to trade mark infringement, copyright infringement, passing off, and false trade description. The court found that altering the product and continuing to use the MAXO trade mark and trade dress destroyed any defence of exhaustion.
Mosquito Repellents’ and Spy Cameras Trade Mark, Design, and Copyright Suit
The plaintiff is engaged in the manufacture and sale of household products, including mosquito repellent devices and refills sold under the trade mark MAXO. The MAXO mosquito repellent machine and refill is a flagship product of the plaintiff and has been in continuous use since the year 2000. The product is sold under registered trade marks across multiple classes and features a distinctive trade dress, artwork, and product configuration. The plaintiff also holds copyright registrations in the artwork forming part of the MAXO trade dress and design registrations for the shape and configuration of its refills.
The defendants are engaged in the business of selling spy cameras and electronic surveillance devices. The plaintiff discovered that the defendants were purchasing MAXO mosquito repellent machines, tampering with them by embedding spy cameras inside, and selling these altered products online through websites and e commerce platforms. The altered products continued to bear the MAXO trade mark and trade dress, creating the impression of a connection with the plaintiff.
Questions Before the Court
1. Whether embedding spy cameras inside MAXO mosquito repellent machines and selling them under the same trade mark amounted to trade mark infringement.
2. Whether such tampering destroyed the defence of exhaustion under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
3. Whether continued use of the MAXO trade dress and artwork amounted to copyright infringement and passing off.
4. Whether the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction.
Arguments Presented By the Parties
Plaintiff’s Arguments
The plaintiff argued that MAXO is a long standing and well known trade mark with substantial goodwill and reputation. It contended that the defendants had materially impaired and altered the MAXO mosquito repellent machines by embedding spy cameras inside them. According to the plaintiff, the defendants continued to use the MAXO trade mark, trade dress, and copyrighted artwork while selling the altered products as spy cameras.
The plaintiff submitted that such conduct amounted to false trade description and passing off, as consumers would believe that the plaintiff was connected with or had authorised the sale of spy cameras. The plaintiff further argued that the defence of exhaustion under Section 30 of the Trade Marks Act was unavailable because the condition of the product had been changed and impaired after it was put on the market.
Defendants’ Position
The defendants did not appear at the stage of grant of interim relief. The court considered the matter based on the pleadings, documents, and material placed on record by the plaintiff.
Court’s Analysis
Nature of the Defendants’ Conduct
The court observed that the defendants were not merely reselling MAXO mosquito repellent machines. According to the court, the defendants had impaired and tampered with the products by embedding spy cameras and altering their intended function. The court stated that the defendants continued to use the MAXO trade mark and trade dress on the altered products, thereby misrepresenting the source and origin of the spy cameras.
Exhaustion and Material Alteration
The court stated that Section 30 of the Trade Marks Act permits resale only where the condition of the goods has not been changed or impaired. According to the court, embedding spy cameras inside mosquito repellent machines amounted to material alteration. The court observed that Section 30(4) allows a trade mark proprietor to oppose further dealings where there are legitimate reasons, including change or impairment of the goods.
Trade Mark, Trade Dress, and Copyright
The court observed that the deliberate concealment of the MAXO trade mark and trade dress in online listings, followed by delivery of altered products bearing the MAXO branding, indicated mala fide intent. According to the court, continued use of the MAXO trade mark and trade dress on altered products constituted infringement, passing off, and copyright infringement.
Consumer Confusion and Harm
The court stated that consumers could believe that the spy cameras originated from or were authorised by the plaintiff. It further observed that if the altered products were used for illegal or immoral activities, the plaintiff’s reputation would suffer irreparable harm. According to the court, the balance of convenience clearly favoured the plaintiff.
Findings
The court held that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case of trade mark infringement, copyright infringement, passing off, and false trade description. It granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from dealing in spy cameras embedded inside MAXO mosquito repellent machines and from using the MAXO trade mark, trade dress, and copyrighted artwork. The court also directed removal of infringing listings from online platforms.
Case Citation
Jyothy Labs Limited v. Gautam Kumar & Anr., CS(COMM) 893/2025, decided on 26 August 2025, Delhi High Court.
Indian Kanoon link: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/46975091/ Visited on 24 December 2025.
Disclaimer
This case blog is based on the author’s understanding of the judgment. Understandings and opinions of others may differ. An AI application was used to generate parts of this case blog. Views are personal.