( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of three interim applications 10857/91, 2125/92, 3550/92. In brief, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff Smt Monika Chawla, as the sole proprietor of KIDDIE KRAFT, has filed a suit for permanent injunction for passing of and pirating the design of baby bouncer against National Trading Company, hereinafter called the defendant seeking a relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from passing of under the plaintiffs design of baby bouncer or any design or a design of any fraudulent imitation thereof in respect of the design of baby bouncer. A decree of mandatory injunction for delivery of all the aforesaid goods, finished or unfinished and other incriminating material including dies and moulds, in the possession or under the control of the defendant has also been claimed against the defendant. Rendition of account and damage has also been prayed for.

( 2 ) IN the suit, an- application for interim injunction was also moved being I. A. 6965/91. Vide order dated 9-7-91 Anil-Dev Singh, J. restrained the defendant from manufacturing, selling, advertising or offering for sale baby bouncers bearing the design propounded by the plaintiff. That interim order was confirmed by the court on 16-8-1991.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED, the defendant-applicant has filed these three applications for vacation of the interim order. All these applications have been contested by the plaintiff and replies have been filed by the plaintiff pleading, inter alia, that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of furniture meant for infants and childern. The plaintiff during the course of her business activities propounded in the year 1987 a new and original design of baby bouncer. The features and the get up of the plaintiffs goods i. e. baby bouncer has already become a distinctive indicium in relation to the said goods. That in order to get statutory protection to the new, original and novel design of baby bouncer, the plaintiff applied fqr registration in the Patent Office at Calcutta on 1. 5. 91. The registration of the design is legal and regular and still subsisting in law. By virtue of the registration, the plaintiff has right to manufacture and sell baby bouncer having the shape and configuration and distinctive features involved in the said design of. baby bouncer of the plaintiff and as such the plaintiff is claiming herself to be proprietor of the design of the baby bouncer. She has also mentioned that the sale of her baby bouncers has been increasing year after year.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, the defendant started manufacturing and selling baby bouncer bearing the shape and configuration having a fraudulent or obvious imitation to that of the plaintiffs design w. e. f. 29. 4. 91 without licence and written consent of the plaintiff and as such the defendants have no right to pirate this design of the plaintiff. Injunction order granted is justified.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the. defendants-applicants submitted that the plaintiff is the pirator and not the proprietor of the propounded design of the baby bouncer as is evident from the affidavit of Mr O. P. Goyal. M/s. Nursery Creations Bombay is the original manufacturer and creator and such type of baby bouncer have been in use prior to 1987 as the plaintiff claims to have propounded in January, 1987. He relied upon various bills issued by Nursery Creation of this article. According to him, a pirator has no right in equity to claim this injunction. He stated that on 21. 12. 91 one Lok Nath Bajaj got this design registered under No. 163931 and be assigned the same in favour of the defendant vide assignment deed dated 14. 3. 92 and the defendant has been registered as licencee of the said design with the Controller of Patents and Design. Later on, realising (be mistake that instead of filing form No. 25 the defendant filed form No. 26; the defendant applied for regisgtration as proprietor. The same is pending,thus