Back
1979 Supreme(Del) 180
High Court Of Delhi
J.N.ELECTRICALS INDIA - Appellant
Versus
PRESIDENT ELECTRICALS - Respondent
Suit 768 of 1977
Decided On : 08/20/1979
H.D.TRIYOGI, K.L.AGARWAL
The overall similarity in the two toasters is likely to deceive an unwary purchaser, and therefore the defendants' toaster infringes the plaintiffs' registered design.
Headnote:
DESIGN - INFRINGEMENT - SIMILARITY - COPYRIGHT - INFRINGEMENT - PAMPHLET - PASSING OFF - INJUNCTION - DESTRUCTION OF INFRINGING GOODS.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs, manufacturers of electric toasters, sued defendants for infringement of their registered design, passing off, and copyright infringement of their pamphlet. The plaintiffs' toaster had a distinctive design with a knob on the side and a two-sheet outer sheet arrangement. The defendants' toaster was nearly identical in size, shape, and configuration, with only minor differences in the stand and the presence of lines on the outer planes.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the defendants' toaster was deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' toaster and infringed the plaintiffs' registered design. The court also found that the defendants' pamphlet was a word-for-word copy of the plaintiffs' pamphlet and infringed the plaintiffs' copyright. The court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or dealing with the infringing toaster and from using the infringing pamphlet.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendants' toaster infringed the plaintiffs' registered design? 2. Whether the defendants were passing off their toaster as that of the plaintiffs? 3. Whether the defendants infringed the plaintiffs' copyright in their pamphlet? 4. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to an account of profits or damages?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court applied the test of "sameness" to determine infringement of the registered design. The court held that the two designs were substantially the same and that the differences were not material. 2. The court held that the defendants' toaster was deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' toaster and that an unwary purchaser was likely to be deceived. 3. The court held that the defendants' pamphlet was a word-for-word copy of the plaintiffs' pamphlet and that there was no originality in the defendants' pamphlet. 4. The plaintiffs gave up their claim for damages and/or accounts during the hearing of the suit.
Final Decision: The court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or dealing with the infringing toaster and from using the infringing pamphlet. The court also ordered the destruction of the infringing toasters and pamphlets.
( 1 ) THIS is a suit against infringement of registered design of electric toaster of the plaintiffs, for passing off and rendition of accounts and damages.
( 2 ). The plaintiffs are M/s. J. N. Electricals (India) a partnership firm, manufacturing various electrical goods, including electric toaster for the last so many years.
( 3 ). The plaintiffs started manufacturing and selling electric toaster of a design which they got registered vide No. 140873 dated April 23, 1973.
( 4 ). It is alleged in the plaint that apart from distinctive features of the electric toaster of the plaintiffs, the shpe, configuration, upper view and side view of the plaintiffs toaster are new and original and protected under the Designs Act, 1911 (hereinafter called the Act ).
( 5 ). It is further averred in the plaint that the arrangement of the outer sheet of the plaintiff s toaster has been made into two sheets which is quite novel. The upper portion of the said sheet is approximately 1/3rd and the lower portion is approximately 2/3rd of the total height of the plaintiffs toaster. The said arrangement has been made in such a manner as to give fine outlook and appealing to the eye. The distinctive knob of the plaintiffs toaster is different from a conventional know which has been put on the side of the toaster.
( 6 ). The further case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs are the prior user of the distinctive design in respect of the electric toaster since 1973 while the defendants came into the market with their electric toaster in the year 1977.
( 7 ). The defendants have adopted identical and/or deceptively similar features as those of the plaintiffs toaster and have been marketing the same, thereby infringing the plaintiffs registered design. Both, the shape and configuration of the plaintiffs registered design, have been infringed by the defendants. It is also alleged by the plaintiffs that apart from infringement of the plaintiffs aforesaid design, the defendants have copied each and every word of instruction/pamphlet and each every photo and arrangement of the said pamphlet.
( 8 ). The plaintiffs have prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing their registered design in relation to the electric toaster and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from passing off electric toaster and pamphlet as that of the plaintiffs manufacture.
( 9 ). The plaintiffs have also prayed for rendition of accounts with regard to manufacture and sale of impugned electric toaster and also for an order for destruction of the impugned electric toaster as well as other media pertaining thereto, including the pamphlet and semifinished goods.
( 10 ). The defendants, M/s. President Electricals in their written statement admit having started marketing electric toaster recently.
( 11 ). The other pleas taken by the defendants in the written-statement is that there are several manufactures of these goods in the market whose goods are much better.
( 12 ). The case of infringement of design as well as copyright was denied. The distinctive features of the plaintiffs toaster are also denied.
( 13 ). The plea of the defendants further is that they are selling their toaster at a higher price. On the pleadings of the parties, Saffer, J. by his order dated March 22, 1978, framed the following issue :
1. Is there any infringement by the defendants of the registered design which the plaintiffs claim as being their own ? OP.
2. Are the defendants passing off their toasters as those manufactured by the plaintiffs ? OP.
3. Have the defendants copied every word of the pamphlet and the photograph arrangement, and if so to what effect ? O. P.
4. Are the plaintiffs entitled to rendition of any accounts or damages, if so, to what amount they are entitled ?
5. Relief. In support of his case, the plaintiffs examined one of its partners, namely, Ved Prakash (P. W. 1) and the defendants examined one of its partners, S
