S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. The plaintiffs, unsuccessful in their application for ad-interim injunction during pendency of their suit for copyright and design infringement as well as for permanent injunction complaining passing off, appeal the decision of a learned single judge.

2. The two plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants under Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000 read with Section 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The first plaintiff (hereafter “Dart”) is a Delaware, USA incorporated company; the second plaintiff, i.e., M/s. Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd. (hereafter “TIPL”) is an Indian company. Dart claims ownership and possession to the proprietary know-how, innovative technology, intellectual property rights and trade secrets in creating the designs used for the manufacture of its products commonly known as Tupperware products. These products- so the suit says- are the result of artistic work in the form of product drawings, mould drawings and moulds over which copyright is claimed. Dart contractually granted to TIPL the right to use its moulds to manufacture Tupperware products and the right to use and apply the proprietary and registered designs in respect of those products for manufacture and offer for sale in India. Dart alleges that it has registered the proprietary designs in relation to the Tupperware products globally and in India as well. As the designs of these products are new and original, they have become extremely popular in the Indian market and have acquired tremendous goodwill and reputation. The extensive and longstanding use, reliability, high quality and wide publicity of the Tupperware products, has resulted in TIPL’s substantial goodwill and reputation in India for the Tupperware products so much so that these products are identified by the customers by their respective designs and for being innovative and high quality products. The plaintiffs also claim that these products have won several design awards the world over. The Guinness Book has listed Tupperware products amongst ten greatest inventions of the 20th century. It is one of the seven US companies to recently receive the 2004 Good Buy Award' for its 'Stuffable Storage Containers' which is an award given by the Good Housekeeping Institute in USA. Details of awards won by the plaintiff over the years are furnished along with the plaint. The plaintiffs have also filed various newspaper and magazine clippings to show the goodwill and reputation which Tupperware products enjoy.

3. The plaintiffs claim that the diverse range of Tupperware products is known worldwide for its unique designs, world class quality, technical and functional superiority over similar kind of products produced by many other plastic manufacturers and these products are sold in more than 100 countries around the world. In India, the sales figures, which were Rs. 18.83 crores in the year 1998-99, have gone up to Rs. 56.47 crores by the end of financial year 2004. The products were marketed in the year 1996 and substantial amounts were also spent on advertising, publicity and promotion to the extent of Rs. 6.91 crores in the year 2003-2004.

4. The suit urges that the plaintiffs obtained registrations from the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks under the Designs Act and Rules, particulars of which were noticed in a detailed chart in the impugned judgment of the learned single judge. This is an undisputed fact. The suit alleged that the defendants copied the plaintiff's design for their products i.e. food grade plastic storage containers and infringed the plaintiff's designs in these products. The defendants’ infringing products’ designs are identical to the designs of the plaintiffs’ products. Such infringement entitles the plaintiffs to seek restraint of the defendants from manufacturing and marketing these products. These actions of the defendants amount to:

(a) design infringement under Section 20 of the Designs Act;

(b) copyr