VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

( 1 ) IA No. 9115/2006 in CS (OS) No. 1602/2006 - allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CS (OS) No. 1602/2006

( 2 ) PLAINT be registered as a Suit.

( 3 ) SUMMONS of the Suit be issued to the Defendants in the ordinary course, registered AD covers as well as by courier, returnable on 18/12/2006 before Joint Registrar.

( 4 ) SUMMONS would indicate that the Written Statement shall be filed within 30 days of the receipt of the summons as prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure. IA No. 9113/2006 in CS (OS) 1602/2006

( 5 ) ISSUE notice of this application to the Defendants in the ordinary course, registered AD covers as well as by courier, returnable On 22. 11. 2006 before Court.

( 6 ) REPLY be filed within four weeks Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

( 7 ) THE Plaintiff prays for an interlocutory injunction which, in essence seeks to combat and eradicate parallel importation by third parties into india of products manufactured by the Plaintiff itself, but in China. The case set up is that although the products are genuine, they are not meant for indian markets, inter alia because their sale does not strictly conform to indian laws and regulations, such as being accompanied with literature in english or the Vernaculars; and/or with a label indicating the maximum retail price; and/or that they are not covered with a warranty; and/or that use of these products is likely to constitute a breach of the warranty of other machinery which has been legally purchased etc. It is common knowledge that multinational corporations have made a conscious preference to establish their manufacturing units in countries where a large percentage of the products leave from the 'back door' and thence for purveyance in the 'grey market'. Countries not connected with the manufacturing process (such as India in the present case) whose economies have not received any economic benefit; are expected to expend their resources to fight malpractices to which they are not privy. It also places an added and heavy burden on the Indian judicial system, already staggering under the weight of an exponantial increase in litigation, not adequately matched by a corresponding increase in the strength of Judges, to fight an illegality occurring in another country. In the course of preliminary hearings it has been conceded by Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff that legal steps to stem this problem, which has become both endemic and pandemic in not more than a couple of countries with whom we share the eastern hemisphere, have not been initiated in the country of origin. It is thus left to the Indian Legal system to judicially quell an economic malpractice rampant in another country. Mr. Anand has filed an affidavit of Mr. Jared Margolis, an internationally renowned lawyer and the author of Intellectual Property rights Hong Kong, SAR and Peoples Republic of China who has opined that it is not feasible or practical to restrain 'parallel' exports from China, although pure counterfeits,. e. goods originally manufactured without the authorisation of the IP owner, as is the case in hand, can be dealt with stringently.

( 8 ) IT is not surprising that when parallel imports of 'lux' were discovered in Mainland China, purportedly infringing the contract for the exclusive use of the Chinese manufacturer, the Customs Office in Foshan, Guangdong province seized the entire consignment. The Ghangzhan Intermediate peoples Court in this case entitled Shanghai Lihua Co. Ltd. v. Business trading Co. held that it violated the rights of the Chinese manufacturer. However, in the present cases, there is no indigenous industry which stands to benifit from the restraining orders prayed for by the Plaintiff. It appears that Section 3 of the Customs Regulation on Intellectual Property Rights forbids the import or export of goods that infringe property rights protected by Chinese laws. However, there is prevailing doubt whether "infringing goods" wil