1. The plaintiff, who is the manufacturer of consumer products including washing machines, has approached this Court praying for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant who is also engaged in manufacture of consumer products including washing machines, from infringing plaintiffs' registered design Nos.223833 and 223835. The plaintiff has also claimed for damages on the ground that the defendant is passing of its product as the product of the plaintiff.

2. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has innovated a new product i.e. washing machine which has unique features inasmuch as on one side it is having a rectangular shape and on other side it is having semicircular shape with jettisoned panel for the knobs. It is the case of the plaintiff that its product vide design Nos.223833 and 223835 has been registered on 15th July 2009. It is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff has been producing the said product from September 2010. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has sold these washing machines to the tune of about Rs.308 crore. It is further case of the plaintiff that the defendant who is the competitor in the market knowing very well that the unique product of the plaintiff has become popular in the market, has deceptively imitated the design of the plaintiff and manufactured the washing machines which are having striking similarity, so as to eat up the plaintiff's share in the market. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the owner of the said designs and, as such, the defendant is not entitled to manufacture the product by imitating the same. In this background the suit as aforesaid has been filed, and the present notice of motion is taken out for interim reliefs during the pendency of the suit restraining the defendant from either manufacturing its machines by imitating the plaintiff's designs and also from passing of the same as that of the plaintiff's product. The plaintiff has moved this Court for grant of adinterim orders in respect of the aforesaid prayers.

3. The plaintiff has filed affidavit in support of notice of motion and affidavit in rejoinder in support of case of its case. The defendant has also filed affidavit in reply along with documents, to oppose the prayer of the plaintiff.

4. Heard Shri Dhond, learned senior counsel on behalf of the plaintiff and Shri Tulzapurkar, learned senior counsel on behalf of the defendant.

5. Shri Dhond, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff submits that in view of provisions of clauses (c) and (d) of section 2 read with section 11 of the Designs Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act” for short), the plaintiff has the exclusive right to apply its designs to any article in any class in which its designs are registered. The learned counsel further submits that the defendant by fraudulent and obvious imitation of the plaintiff's registered designs and applying them to its washing machines, has violated the provisions of section 22 of the said Act. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has been manufacturing its washing machines under the said designs from September 2010 and only after the said machines have become popular, the defendant has imitated the design which is totally identical with that of the plaintiff's registered designs, only in order to pass of its product as that of the plaintiff's. Shri Dhond, therefore, submits that the plaintiff has made out a case for grant of injunction against the defendant from infringing the plaintiff's designs as also from passing of its product.

6. In rejoinder to the submissions of Shri Tulzapurkar that since the plaintiff itself has two registered designs which are almost identical with some variations and, as such, in view of section 4 of the said Act, the plaintiff's designs cannot be said to be a new or original and, therefore, the defendant who is manufacturing its product with major variations like colour scheme, composition of lines, patte