JUDGMENT

S.B. SINHA, J. - Leave granted.

2. Appellant is a manufacturer of a product known as `Dabur Red Tooth Powder or `Dabur Lal Dant Manjan. In the year 1993, it had allegedly adopted a unique colour combination and arrangement of features which was subsequently changed in December 1999.

3. Respondent herein is also said to be manufacturer of a tooth powder known as `Sujata. It is said to have infringed the copy right of the appellant.

4. A suit was filed by the appellant against the respondent in the Delhi High Court. Paragraph 7 of the plaint reads thus :

"7. In December 1999, the plaintiff adopted a new carton while retaining the conical shape and white cap for their product which is described hereinbelow :

* On one column has the words RED TOOTH POWDER within a yellow blurb.

* Immediately below the blurb is an oval shaped picture of a family with a yellow background.

* Above these two features there is a legend within a blurb mentioning the fact that this is a new pack.

* The column immediately next to it contain the same features in the Devnagri script.

* A third column sets out the details including Composition, Weight, MRP and Manufacturers Name etc.

* The top half of the third column contains an oval shaped device containing a diagrammatic representation of the herbs that constitute the ingredients of Plaintiffs product."

It was alleged that the said carton constituted an `artistic work within the meaning of Section 25-C of the Copyright Act, 1957 (the 1957 Act).

5. The Respondent is said to have been using an identical colour scheme lay out, arrangement of features and get up as that of the plaintiffs, the essential features whereof are :

* One column has the words RED TOOTH POWDER within a yellow blurb.

* A column which contains the representation of a family in an oval shape picture.

* There is a similar representation in the Devnagri script in another column.

* The details of the product are set out in another column.

* Above the details of the product there is advice of a lotus, similar to the positioning of the plaintiffs herbs in the plaintiffs carton."

6. The reliefs claimed for by the plaintiff in the said suit, inter alia, are :

"(A) An order of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their partners, proprietors and/or promoters, as the case may be, their servants and agents, representatives, dealers and all others acting for and on their behalf from reproducing any of the artistic features of the plaintiffs DABUR RED TOOTH POWDER container/ packaging/pouch, including its colour combination, get up, layout or arrangement of features, printing, publishing, using or otherwise reproducing any of the artistic features thereof in any material from amounting to an infringement of copyright.

(B) An order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their partners, proprietors and/or promoters, as the case may be, their servants and agents, representatives, dealers and all others acting for and on their behalf from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale or otherwise directly or indirectly dealing in tooth powder packed in the impugned packaging or any other packaging as may be a slavish imitation and/or a substantial reproduction of the DABUR RED TOOTH POWDER container/packaging/pouch or from committing any other act as is likely to cause confusion and deception amounting to passing off."

7. Respondent filed an application in the suit purported to be under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as `the Code) contending that as the defendant is resident of Andhra Pradesh, the Delhi High Court had no jurisdiction. By reason of the impugned judgment and order dated 22.5.2006, a learned Single Judge of the High Court accepted the said contention of the respondent.

8. An intra court appeal preferred thereagainst has been dismissed by a Division Bench of the said Court holding that the matter is covered by the decision of this Court in Dhodha House v. S.K. Maingi,