Back
2011 Supreme(Del) 434
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan Singh, J.
Appellants: Schreder S.A. and Anr.
Vs.
Respondent: Electrical Lines
I.A. No. 3499/2009 in CS (OS) No. 502/2009
Decided On: 03.06.2011
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Sushant K. Thakur and Devendra Nautiyal, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: Rajbir Singh, Proxy Counsel for V.K. Ahuja, Adv.
Failure to provide clear evidence and produce witnesses as directed by the court can lead to denial of interim relief in design infringement cases.
Headnote:
Design Infringement - Intellectual Property - Designs Act, 2000 - Section 22
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed suit for design infringement, claiming that Defendant's products were identical to their registered designs. Defendant denied infringement, stating differences in products and expiration of one design registration.
Finding of the Court:
Court found that Plaintiffs failed to provide clear evidence of infringement and did not produce witnesses as directed by the court. Declined to pass interim order in favor of Plaintiffs, directing them to adduce evidence during trial.
Issues: Infringement of registered designs, failure to produce evidence as directed by the court.
Ratio Decidendi: Failure to provide clear evidence and produce witnesses as directed by the court led to the denial of interim relief.
Final Decision: Application for interim relief was disposed of, and the court's finding on the rival products was stated to have no bearing on the main suit.
Manmohan Singh, J.
1. By this order I shall dispose of the present application being I.A. No. 3499/2009 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure filed by the Plaintiffs.
2. The Plaintiffs filed the present suit for permanent injunction, restraining infringement and passing off of design registration, damages, rendition of accounts, delivery up etc.
3. It is averred in the plaint, that the Plaintiff No. 1 is a company incorporated in Belgium, and is engaged in the business of photo metrically controlled luminaries, various lighting products including street lighting fixtures and floodlights and has worldwide operations. Plaintiff No. 2 is a joint venture company of Plaintiff No. 1 in India. Plaintiff No. 1 and its group companies are operating worldwide in more than 34 countries spread over 5 continents.
4. It is contended in the plaint that the Plaintiff No. 1 conceived a new shape and configuration in luminaries and filed application for design registration under the provisions of Designs Act, 2000 and was granted design registration being Nos. 170084 and 182348. These luminaries of the Plaintiffs' are known in the market by name of RT3 and ONYX respectively. The said luminaries are sold in India by Plaintiff No. 2, and because of their excellent quality and shape, have acquired considerable goodwill and reputation.
5. In January 2008, Plaintiff No. 2 came to know that the Defendant is selling luminaries identical to the luminaries of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs served a Cease and Desist Notice dated 22.01.2009 upon the Defendant but the Defendant neither replied nor stopped infringement of the design of the Plaintiffs. It is stated in the plaint that the Defendant has adopted the impugned designs to deceive the public and encash the goodwill of the Plaintiffs and by these acts of the Defendant, the Plaintiffs have suffered loss and damage of such nature, that unless the immediate relief prayed for is not granted, the Plaintiffs will continue to suffer irreparable loss and injury.
6. It is averred in the plaint, that the Defendant is selling its goods on such low prices that it would destabilize the selling network of the Plaintiffs. The Defendant has no legal right to encroach upon the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiffs.
7. In its written statement, the Defendant has stated that it is neither a manufacturer nor an importer, it is an authorized dealer/stockiest of product UNISTAR brand cables and capacitors and various other companies. The Defendant has not contravened any conditions enumerated in Section 22 of the Design Act, 2000. The electrical products sold by the Defendant are different in shape, size, dimension, get up and colour then that of the Plaintiffs, therefore, there is no infringement of the design of the Plaintiffs.
8. Further, it is submitted by the Defendant that the price of the products is not decided by the Defendant as it is just a dealer, therefore, it would be wrong to say that the Defendant is offering goods at such low rates that would destabilize the selling network of the Plaintiffs.
9. The present suit has been filed on the basis of two registered Design bearing Nos. 170084 as of 30.10.1995 and 182348 as of 15.05.2000. As regards Design No. 170084 as of 30.10.1995, the said Design has already expired after completing its life i.e. 15 years. The said Design has, therefore, already become public domain after the expiry of period of 15 years i.e. after 30.10.2010, therefore, no relief can be granted to the Plaintiffs pertaining to the said Design.
10. As far as Design No. 182348 as of 15.05.2010 is concerned, the said registration is still effective and valid till 15.05.2015. It is to be seen as to whether the Defendant is guilty of infringement of said Design or not. In order to prove their case, the Plaintiffs have filed various documents including the photostat copy of the Design registration bearing No. 182348 as well as the copy of the catalogue of the
