Court Clarifies Scope of Undertaking on Design Infringement; Sales of Already Manufactured Goods Not Penalized as Contempt
In a significant judgment delivered on October 13, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, ruled on contempt applications arising from a design infringement suit filed by Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited against Geeken Seating Collection Private Limited. The case revolved around allegations that Geeken continued to manufacture and sell products infringing on Godrej's registered designs despite court orders and undertakings.
Godrej had initially obtained interim injunctions in November 2024 restraining Geeken from selling products identical or almost identical to two of its registered designs, followed by an undertaking from Geeken in February 2025 to discontinue manufacturing products infringing five other registered designs. However, Godrej filed contempt applications alleging breaches, citing sales and website display of infringing products even after these orders.
The Court analyzed the legal framework governing contempt of court in civil matters, notably Order XXXIX Rules 2 and 2A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which require wilful disobedience of a clear and explicit court order to attract penal consequences such as attachment of property or civil imprisonment.
The Court emphasized established Supreme Court precedents, including Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj and Sudhir Vasudeva v. M. George Ravishekaran, underscoring that contempt jurisdiction requires strict proof of wilful disobedience and must not extend beyond the explicit terms of the court's orders.
On the facts, the Court held that the February 6, 2025 undertaking bound Geeken only to cease manufacturing infringing products and did not expressly prohibit the sale of goods already manufactured before the undertaking. The earlier November 18, 2024 order restrained sales but only regarding two specific designs. Hence, sales of inventory manufactured prior to the undertaking could not be construed as contempt.
Geeken's explanation that sales between February and August 2025 resulted from a communication gap with sales personnel was accepted as bona fide, especially since the defendant admitted the inadvertent sales promptly and took remedial action by removing product listings. The Court found no conclusive evidence of manufacture or sale of infringing goods after August 1, 2025, and held that mere continued display of products on the website did not prove ongoing infringement.
While the defendant delayed filing a certified inventory as directed, the Court acknowledged the complexity of compiling records across multiple warehouses and did not infer contempt from the delay alone. The Court granted liberty to Godrej to raise damages at trial and to approach the Court again if future violations occurred.
The judgment clarifies the stringent threshold required for holding parties in contempt for breach of injunctions or undertakings, especially in intellectual property disputes involving registered designs, reinforcing that penal actions demand clear, explicit orders and strict proof of wilful disobedience.
Bottom Line:
Contempt/Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC - Penal consequences for breach of injunction or undertaking require clear order and strict proof of wilful disobedience - Undertaking to discontinue "making" infringing products cannot be expanded in contempt proceedings to include sale of already manufactured goods when such restraint was not expressly recorded - Mere website display or delay in filing inventory, without conclusive proof of post-caution manufacture or sale, is insufficient to establish contempt.
Statutory provision(s):
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2, and 2A; Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 2(b)
