Important Point – Injunction cannot be granted to escape business competition.

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

I.A. No. 4740/2014 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC)

1. Present suit is a suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of copyright, rendition of accounts and damages. The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the law of United States of America having its registered office at Illinois, USA.

2. Plaintiff No. 2 is a partnership firm registered under the laws of India having its registered office at Greater Kailash Enclave-I, New Delhi. Mr. Naveen Sangri, the constituted attorney of plaintiff No. 1 is also the managing partner of plaintiff No. 2. The plaint has been signed and verified through him.

3. Plaintiff No. 1 is stated to have pioneered the delivery of comprehensive and progressive transportation solutions and especially 580 in the field of railway transport. It has an experience of more than 80 years in the said industry and boasts of a global presence in more than 40 countries. Amongst several auto rack components, cable and chain securement systems are a container securement locks developed by plaintiff No. 1, i.e. the automatic twist locks (ATLs). The plaintiffs ATLs are used to secure containers to railcars and to fit all ISO corner castings. The novel constructional features of the plaintiffs ATLs is a result of years of research and development which has involved investment of tremendous amounts of skill, labour of the engineers and experts of plaintiff No. 1. The intellectual rights in these ATLs including his drawings vests solely with plaintiff No. 1. He is entitled to enjoy all such exclusive rights under Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Copyright Act).

4. The plaintiff No. 1 has been granted a patent for its ATLs in the USA. Plaintiff No. 2 has also applied for a patent for its ATLs in India under Patent Application No. 1922/DEL/2007 dated 28.08.2006 which is currently pending.

5. The two fundamental constructional features of the proprietary drawings of ATLs of plaintiff No. 1 comprise of (i) a uniquely configures shaft member for receiving springs of various types/material and (ii) spiral torsional springs that are made of tempered steel. All these features which are illustrated in the drawings of plaintiff No. 1 are proprietary to plaintiff No. 1 who alone is the owner of copyright in such original drawings/artistic work. Plaintiff No. 2 is the exclusive licensee of plaintiff No. 1 for ATLs in the territory of India. Plaintiff No. 2 is authorized to manufacture, reproduce, sell, offer for sale these ATLs based on the proprietary drawings of plaintiff No. 1. The fact that plaintiff No. 2 is the licensee of plaintiff No. 1 has been communicated to the Ministry of Railways, Research Design and Standard Organisation (RSDO) (defendant No. 2). In September 1997, the Container Corporation of India (CONCOR) selected the plaintiffs ATLs conforming to drawings No. CONTR-9405-S-21 (fitment details of the plaintiffs ATLs) which have been used by the Indian Railways in all its containers. The RITES (defendant No. 3) was assigned the task of carrying out vendor approval for the ATLs of plaintiff No. 2 but now the responsibility has been taken over by defendant No. 2. Once defendant No. 2 took over this responsibility, the approval had been granted by defendant No. 2 in accordance with the Guidelines for Multisourcing of Automatic Twist Lock (hereinafter referred to as the Multisourcing Guidelines) issued by defendant No. 2 in the year 2011. The RITES has also carried out trials of ATLs of various other companies who have devised their own proprietary drawings for such ATLs. The ATLs of plaintiff No. 1, licensed to plaintiff No. 2, was also tested by RITES. On 18.05.2012, defendant No. 2 conveyed its approval to plaintiff No. 2 for supply of plaintiffs ATLs to RITES in accordance with the Multisourcing Guidelines. This has made plaintiff No. 2 an approved vendor for ATLs. The quality assurance plan approved by defendants No. 2 & 3 is also a part