The rights of copyright owners are adequately protected, it will give a fillip to new inventions and the inventions will be followed by innovations, and investments for the commercial working of the inventions, thereby leading to the industrial progress of the country.

( 1 ) THE plaintiffs have filed this suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of copyright of industrial drawings and passing off, damages and for rendition of accounts. Alongwith the plaint, the plaintiffs have also filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code seeking an ad interim injunction to restrain the defendants from manufacturing, marketing or otherwise dealing in Pick-N-Carry Hydraulic Self Mobile Cranes, identical or deceptively similar to those of the plaintiffs.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiffs, in 1971, the plaintiff No. 2 Company, based on 100% know-how, launched its concept and drawings of Pick-N-Carry Hydraulic Self Mobile Cranes and the plaintiffs have been manufacturing and marketing the said cranes since then. The drawings of the crane developed by the plaintiffs were reduced to writing. The employees involved in the making of these industrial drawings and production of the crane were under a contract of secrecy, which strictly prohibited them from giving out by word of mouth or otherwise, particulars or details of manufacturing process, specifications and technical know-how. These industrial drawing?, manufacturing process of the crane, names of suppliers of certain parts used in the crane constitute trade secrets of the plaintiffs. By virtue of the provisions of the Copyright Act, the plaintiffs are the exclusive owners of the artistic work consisting of the industrial drawings, shape and get up of the crane and they have also the exclusive right to reproduce or depict in three dimensions the drawings of the said crane. In addition to the industrial drawings of the entire crane, the plaintiffs also claimed copyright in the following key components: (i) The boom and slider assembly; (ii) the lower structure assembly; (iii) the main frame-axle assembly; (iv) the differential housing; (v) the pump coupling; (vi) the pulley block assembly; (vii) gear box housing; (viii) the wheel reduction gear; (ix) the differential, (x) the clutch assembly.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiffs, the defendant No. 2 remained under the employment of the plaintiff No. 2 for the period from December 6,1982 to May 16, 1992. He worked as an Assistant Production and Production Manager for approximately six years and was exposed to the entire production line of the said crane. He also worked as the Purchase Manager for two years and was responsible for procurement of material from suppliers for these cranes. Being at such key position, defendant No. 2 had not only easy access to the industrial drawings of the said crane and its component parts but he also became familiar with the entire process and documentation relating to its manufacture and marketing. These jobs were entrusted to the defendant No. 2 under express condition of strict confidentiality. In 1992, the defendant No. 2 left the employment of the plaintiff No. 2. Suddenly in 1995, the plaintiffs discovered that the defendant No. 2 had wrongfully introduced into the market Pick-N-Carry Hydraulic Self Mobile Cranes which is a slavish copy of the plaintiff s crane. It is alleged that the crane produced by the defendants is entirely based on the industrial drawings of the plaintiffs, in which they have copyright. It is further alleged that the defendant No. 2 has not only committed breach of the confidence reposed in him but he pirated the industrial drawings of the plaintiffs with a view to take advantage of the designs of the plaintiffs crane in the market and have made use of the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiffs, and that the defendants are passing off their cranes as plaintiffs and thus earned undue profits to which they were not entitled and, therefore, they are liable to render accounts and pay to the plaintiffs the profits earned by them on the sale of these cranes.

( 4 ) THE defendants resisted the suit and the application under Order 39, Rules I and 2, Civil Procedure Code on various grounds. Accordi