The Appellants/ Original Plaintiffs are the registered proprietor of the designed article, for reference called "Parachute Cap", since 1999. The Respondents’ Application for registration of their cap i.e. for reference called "Cocoraj Cap" was rejected some time in the year 2004.

2. In the month of September, 2006, the cause of action arose, when the Plaintiffs learnt about the use by the Respondents-Defendants of the impugned caps for which they have registered and acquired copyright of the said design.

3. On 8th September, 2006, the Appellants/ Original Plaintiffs vide their Advocate’s letter called upon the Respondents/ Original Defendants to desist from using the impugned caps of which they are the proprietor of registered design bearing No. 181063.

4. On 19th September, 2006, the Defendants vide their Advocate’s letter denied the allegation of the Plaintiffs and claimed to be using the impugned caps since 2002.

5. On 3rd October, 2006, the Plaintiffs vide their Advocate’s letter, once again called upon the Defendants to desist from using the impugned caps for which they are the proprietor of registered design.

6. On 4th October, 2006, the Plaintiffs thereafter filed the suit in this Court in order to restrain the Defendants from further infringing their registered cap design.

7. On 27th February, 2007, the Notice of Motion filed by the Plaintiffs was dismissed. Therefore, being aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 27th February, 2007, the Appellants prefer this Appeal before this Court.

8. The learned counsel for the Appellants relied on the Judgment in Ford Motor Co. Ltd.’s Design Applications (1995) R.P.C. (No. 5) House of Lords, Page 167 167.

9. The learned Senior counsel for the Respondents relied on the following Judgments.

a) Ravinder Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Assam and Ors. (1999) 7 Supreme Court Cases, 435.

b) Sifam Electrical Instrument Co. Ltd. Vs. Sangamo Weston Ltd., 1973 R.P.C. (No.29) Chancery Division, Page 899.

c) Wander Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Antox India P. Ltd., 1990 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 727.

d) M/s. Kemp & Company & another Vs. M/s. Prima Plastics Ltd., 1999(1) Bom. C.R. 239.

e) Polar Industries Ltd. Vs. Usha International Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2000, Cal. 119, (2002)2 CALLT 162 (HC)

10. The relevant provisions of the Designs Act-2000, (for short, "The Act") are as under:- 2. Definitions:- .......

a) "article" means any article of manufacture and any substance, artificial, or partly artificial and partly natural; and includes any part of an article capable of being made and sold separately;

b) .....

c) .....

d) "design" means only the features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or composition of lines or colours applied to any article whether in two dimensional or three dimensional or in both forms, by any industrial process or means, whether manual, mechanical or chemical, separate or combined, which in the finished article appeal to and are judged solely by the eye; but does not include any mode or principle of construction or anything which is in substance a mere mechanical device, and does not include any trade mark as defined in clause (v) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (43 of 1958) or property mark as defined in section 479 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or any artistic work as defined in clause (c) of section 2 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (14 of 1957);

11. Section 19. - Cancellation of registration:-

(1) Any person interested may present a petition for the cancellation of the registration of a design at any time after the registration of the design, to the Controller on any of the following grounds, namely:-

a) that the design has been previously registered in India; or

b) that it has been published in India or in any other country prior to the date of registration; or

c) that the design is not a new or original design; or

d) that the design is not registerable under this Act; or

e) that