SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Bom) 1737

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
G.S. PATEL, J.
Mandev Tubes Pvt. Ltd. - Plaintiff
Versus
Kalpesh R. Jain & Ors. - Defendants
Notice of Motion No. 2195 of 2016 In Suit No. 742 of 2016
Decided On : 06-12-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Plaintiff : Mr. Rohan Kadam, Mr. Shenoy Prasad, Ms. Sneha Panchmukh, Ms. Rajashri Karande, Mr. Joseph Varikasery
For the Defendants : Ms. P.M. Bhansali, Ms. Rajlaxmi

The judgment establishes the importance of novelty, originality, and substantial similarity in comparing rival designs under the Designs Act, 2000, and emphasizes the significance of these factors in determining infringement and passing off claims.

Headnote:

Registered Designs - Infringement and Passing Off - Designs Act, 2000, Sections 2(d), 10, 11, 16, 19 - The court discussed the Plaintiff's claim of infringement and passing off of its registered designs for copper tubes under the Designs Act, 2000. The court highlighted the definition of 'design' under Section 2(d) and the provisions related to the register of designs, copyright on registration, and prior publication under Sections 10, 11, 16, and 19. The court emphasized the importance of novelty, originality, and substantial similarity in comparing rival designs and rejected the Defendants' claims of prior publication and functionality of the design. The court found a prima facie case in favor of the Plaintiff and granted an injunction.

Fact of the Case:

The Plaintiff sought protection for its registered designs of copper tubes, alleging infringement and passing off by the three Defendants who had prior association with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff claimed novelty and originality in its design and sought relief under the Designs Act, 2000.

Finding of the Court:

The court found a prima facie case in favor of the Plaintiff, rejecting the Defendants' claims of prior publication and functionality of the design. The court granted an injunction in favor of the Plaintiff, emphasizing the importance of novelty, originality, and substantial similarity in comparing rival designs.

Issues: Infringement and passing off of registered designs, novelty, originality, substantial similarity, prior publication, and functionality of the design.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of novelty, originality, and substantial similarity in comparing rival designs. It rejected the Defendants' claims of prior publication and functionality of the design, finding a prima facie case in favor of the Plaintiff.

Final Decision: The Notice of Motion was made absolute in favor of the Plaintiff, granting an injunction and ordering the Court Receiver to make an inventory of the offending goods in the Defendants' premises and seal them.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Plaintiff seeks to protect its registered designs, [Plaint, Exhibit “B”, pp. 39–41 and Exhibit “C”, pp. 42–46] alleging infringement and passing off. These are designs in respect of copper tubes. The Plaintiff’s case is that the three Defendants have infringed the Plaintiff’s design. It must be noted straightaway that the three Defendants are not strangers to the Plaintiff. The 1st Defendant is admittedly a former transporter for the Plaintiff’s goods, and runs his own proprietorship firm. There are invoices from the 1st Defendant in respect of his transport services. [Plaint, Exhibit “M”, pp. 106–110] Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the Plaintiff’s erstwhile employees. [Plaint, Exhibit “N”, pp. 111–116]

2. The Plaintiff was established in 1964 and is a manufacturer, supplier and distributor of copper tubes, a business it has been doing for over 45 years. It claims to have gained considerable goodwill and reputation in that time, and says that it now has an annual turnover of Rs. 11 crores.

3. The Plaintiff’s copper tubes have diverse applications, including household air-conditioning, medical gas pipelines and indoor plumbing. Several leading air-conditioner manufacturers are among the Plaintiff’s clients and customers. There are endorsements from various entities including the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre and several prominent manufacturers of high-end consumer goods and appliances.

4. The Plaintiff claims that in September 2009 it conceived of a unique, novel and original shape and configuration for its tubes. The originality and novelty claimed in this design for its copper tubes is that one end of each of these tubes has an expanded bell shape. The design is purely aesthetic, according to the Plaintiff. On 17th September 2009, the Plaintiff sought registration of this design under the Designs Act, 2000. On 4th March 2010, the Registrar granted the application and issued a registration certificate No. 224751. A copy of the registration certificate is annexed. [Plaint, Exhibit “B”, pp. 39-41] The corresponding Legal Proceedings Certificate is also annexed. [Plaint, Exhibit “C”, pp. 42-46]

5. The definition of “design” under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000 makes it clear that the design is a reference only to the features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or composition of lines and colours applied to any article, whether in two or three dimensions or both 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. This design excludes any mode or principle of construction or anything which is in substance a mere mechanical device. It also does not include a trade mark, property mark or any artistic work (the latter being covered by the Copyright Act, 1957).

6. Sections 10 and 11 of the Designs Act, 2000 read thus:-

10. Register of designs. - (1) There shall be kept at the patent office a book called the register of designs, wherein shall be entered the names and addresses of proprietors of registered designs, notifications of assignments and of transmissions of registered designs, and such other matter as may be prescribed and such register may be maintained wholly or partly on computer floppies or diskettes, subject to such safeguards as may be prescribed.

(2) Where the register is maintained wholly or partly on computer floppies or diskettes under subsection (1), any reference in this Act to any entry in the register shall be construed as the reference to the entry so maintained on computer floppies or diskettes.

(3) The register of designs existing at the commencement of this Act shall be incorporated with and form part of the register of designs under this Act.

(4) The register of designs shall be prima facie evidence of any matter by this Act directed or authorized to be entered therein.

11. Copyright on registration. - (1) When a design is registered, the registered proprietor of the design


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top