The court emphasized that under the Designs Act, the use of any design that is an obvious imitation of a registered design constitutes piracy of the registered design, and the burden of proof lies with the Defendant to show prior publication.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. Symphony Ltd. (hereinafter, 'Plaintiff') has filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of its registered designs and for damages. The Plaintiff is a company, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of consumer home appliances including air coolers. The three models of air coolers of the company, designs of which are registered, are as under:

Design No.	Model	Date of Registration
235189	Symphony Storm 70i	14th March, 2011
198241	Symphony Winter	20th January, 2005
227069	Symphony Sumo	4th February, 2010

2. Copies of the registration certificates, along with the representation sheets for each of the models have been filed on record and have been exhibited as Ex.PW-1/7, Ex.PW-1/8 & Ex.PW-1/9.

3. All the three above designs are registered under the Designs Act, 2000 and are valid. The designs were registered in the name of Mr. Achal Anil Bakeri, who is one of the promoters of Symphony Limited. Vide assignment deed dated 30th October, 2013 (Ex.PW-1/10), the designs have been assigned by Mr. Bakeri to the Plaintiff company, which is promoted by him. Pursuant to the said assignment, the company has since been registered as the subsequent proprietor of the three designs. Ld. Counsel further confirms that all three design registrations have been renewed and are valid.

4. The suit has been filed against M/s. Life Plus Appliances on the premise that the Defendant commenced manufacturing and selling of air coolers, which are replicas of the Plaintiff's designs. The suit was listed on 11th June, 2014 and an ad-interim injunction was granted in the following terms.

"8. I have heard learned senior counsel for the plaintiff and also perused the plaint, application and the documents filed along with the plaint. I am satisfied that it is a fit case for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, defendants, their servants, agents, employees, stockists, distributors are restrained from manufacturing, marketing, selling, advertising, directly or indirectly infringing the copyright and design of the plaintiff in coolers, as per the details mentioned in the order above."

5. Thereafter, the Defendant has entered appearance and has filed its written statement. The case of the Defendant in its written statement is that the designs are prior published. The Defendant has placed on record the advertisements of the Plaintiff's products dating back to March, 2010 wherein the Plaintiff had advertised various models of air coolers. The Defendant has also relied upon two trademark applications filed by the Plaintiff for registration of the marks 'Winter' and 'Symphony Sumo' dated 13th December 2004 and 7th March, 2000 and bearing application nos. 1326899 & 908726 respectively. Further, the Defendant pleaded that its designs are different from the Plaintiff's registered designs.

6. In its replication, the Plaintiff avers that filing of trademark applications does not show that air coolers, bearing the registered designs, were launched at the time when the trademark applications were filed. In fact, it was only after 14th March, 2011, which is the effective date of registration, that the Symphony Storm 70i air cooler was launched. The other two registrations are prior to the advertisements relied upon by the Defendant.

7. The Defendant initially appeared in the matter, however, since October, 2015, the Defendant stopped appearing. On 27th April, 2017, the Defendant was proceeded ex-parte. The Plaintiff has led evidence of its witness Shri Avshesh Sharma as PW-1. The statement of the said witness has also been recorded. The witness has relied upon various exhibits, which are:

Ex.PW-1/1 - Certified copy of the Board Resolution dated 26th May, 2014

Ex.PW-1/2 - Copy of the suit