The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Plaintiff's drawings and moulds are considered 'artistic works' and entitled to copyright protection under the Copyright Act, 1957. The Defendants' reverse engineering of the Plaintiff's products and preparation of identical drawings constitute copyright infringement.

G.S. Patel, J.

In this copyright infringement action, the Plaintiff seeks by this Notice of Motion an order restraining the Defendants from infringing the Plaintiff's copyright in the artistic works at Exhibits "A" and "B" to the plaint. These are technical drawings, and I will return to them in detail shortly. The Plaintiff also claims copyright in the drawings of the moulds or cast of the Plaintiff's product.

2. The products in question are flash lights used in photography. I would imagine that these are not the kind of things that a novice or a casual user might have, but are used in commercial and studio photography by professionals and perhaps by serious enthusiasts. The Defendants' products, claimed by the Plaintiff to be the infringing items, are, to my mind, indistinguishable from the Plaintiff's. The Defendants have produced no drawings of their own. Their defence, as I understand it, is that there is no subsisting copyright in the Plaintiff's drawings; that the drawings have no artistic value and therefore there can be no copyright in them; the Plaintiff's drawings cannot be used to make the moulds in which, too, the Plaintiff claims copyright; that it is in fact the Plaintiff who has pirated from the Defendants; and that there is so much uncertainty about whether any copyright could vest in the Plaintiff or, on the Plaintiff's showing, can only vest in its Swiss principals, that no question arises of granting the Plaintiff any sort of injunction.

3. I have heard Dr. Tulzapurkar, learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff, and Mr. Neeraj Grover, learned Counsel for the Defendants at considerable length. Having considered their submissions and, with their assistance, the material on record, I found that the Plaintiffs have made out a very strong prima facie case. Irretrievable injury will, I have also found, be caused to the Plaintiff should reliefs be denied, and the balance of convenience demands the grant of the injunctions as sought. My reasons follow.

4. The Plaintiff manufactures, exports and trades in digital studio flashlights and photography accessories, and similar products. It is a company listed on the Bombay and Ahmedabad stock exchanges. It is the exclusive manufacturer, importer and distributor for Elinchrom SA Ltd., a Swiss company ("Elinchrom") since 1986. Among the Elinchrom-branded products are flash lighting systems called the Elinchrom FRX 200, Elinchrom FRX 400 and compact Flash Unit System. These are being manufactured and distributed by the Plaintiff since 2012-13.

5. The 2nd Defendant manufactures photography and videography equipment, including studio flash systems, video lights, camera flash guns, halogen lamps, and so on, all under the trade mark SIMPEX/SIMPEX PRO. The 1st Defendant is the 2nd Defendant's distributor. Both defendants appear to be sister enterprises owned by a common family concern.

6. According to the Plaintiff, in 2007, one of their directors, one Vimal Soni, created machine drawings for manufacturing flash lights for photography. Two more of the Plaintiff's employees were also involved in this. Soni headed the design team, and oversaw and supervised their preparation. He finalised the drawings. Soni and the two other employees, named Manish and Subodh, are the authors of these drawings. Soni was and is a director, and Manish and Subodh were and remain in full time employment of the Plaintiff. The drawings were created by the three in the course of their employment for and on behalf of the Plaintiff, which is the first owner of copyright in these drawings. The Plaintiff claims that the copyright subsists. These drawings are produced at Exhibit "A" to the plaint from pages 31 to 40. An aspect that must needs be noted that even in these drawings, though prepared for the Plaintiff by its employees, Elinchrom's brand and trade mark appears throughout. This will have some significance to one of Mr. Grover's submissions.

7. Soni and his team also prepared drawings for a product