JUDGMENT

Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, J. - The Plaintiff was incorporated in 1969 and has been carrying on business in the field of construction bonding chemicals/ materials, additives products including sealants, adhesives, automotive chemicals, art materials, industrial and textile resins and organic pigments and preparations and other products including waterproofing chemicals, construction and paint chemicals.

2. The Plaintiff offers a vide range of sealants and adhesives under its PV SEAL brand which are in the nature of a pipe glue and a chemical compound/adhesive used for joining/fusing various kinds of plastic pipes. The Plaintiff uses distinctive labels upon and in relation to its M-SEAL PV SEAL products.

3. Since 2015, the Plaintiff's M-SEAL PV SEAL products bearing distinctive PV SEAL labels are sold openly extensively, continuously and in an uninterrupted manner in a distinctive tin container having unique and distinctive shape, size, contours and configurations.

4. In or about 2018, the Plaintiff transitioned from tin containers to Coex plastic containers for its aforementioned solvent cement products being sold under mark M-SEAL PV SEAL. The Plaintiff was the first in the industry to make this transition to Coex plastic containers and accordingly designed containers for the M-SEAL PV SEAL products that could be applied to different variants.

5. The same were introduced and have been in the market since 2019 and the tin containers were slowly being phased out over time. From 2023, only the Coex plastic containers are being used.

6. In or about 2024, the Plaintiff came across a range of solvent cement products manufactured and/or marketed and/or sold by the Defendant under the brand/mark SOLVOBOND, being sold in containers which, according to the Plaintiff, are an imitation and are deceptively similar to the distinctive M-SEAL PV SEAL container of the Plaintiff, including identical shape, configuration, caps including vertical lines and extended ridges thereon and multiple grooves below the cap connecting to the seal of the container.

7. In these circumstances, the Plaintiff filed the present Suit alleging that the Defendant is engaged in infringement of its design, copyright and committing the tort of passing of the goods of the Defendant as the goods of the Plaintiff. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendant is systematically and blatantly imitating the Plaintiff's brand /product and/or trying to come as close as possible and/or surreptitiously trying to hijack the Plaintiff s containers and are misleading/deceiving public at large. Therefore, the Plaintiff has filed the present Interim Application.

8. Mr. Tulzapurkar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff in support of the Interim Application, submitted that the Plaintiff was claiming originality and novelty in the shape and configuration of its distinctive M-SEAL PV SEAL container. The Controller of Design had granted a Certificate of Registration to the Plaintiff as proprietor of the registered design. He submitted that, by virtue of the provisions of Section 10(4) of the DESIGNS ACT , 200 ("the DESIGNS ACT ") the register of designs is prima facie evidence of any matter which by the DESIGNS ACT has been directed or authorised to be entered therein. He submitted that the Plaintiff s design, when considered as a whole, is distinctive and unique and has an appeal to the eye. The novelty of the Plaintiff's design resides in the shape and configuration thereof.

9. Mr. Tu