The central legal point established in the judgment is that evidence of market survey and public availability of similar designs is not sufficient to establish lack of novelty and originality of a registered design. The judgment also clarified the requirements for registration of a design under the Designs Act, emphasizing that a design does not need to be significantly distinguishable from known designs to be registrable.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. Relaxo Footwears Limited (hereafter `Relaxo') has filed the present appeal impugning a judgment dated 06.05.2019 (hereafter `the impugned judgment'), passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby Relaxo's application for an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereafter `the CPC') was dismissed and the application filed by Aqualite India Limited and Aqualite Rubber and Plastics Private Limited (hereafter collectively referred to as `Aqualite') under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC, seeking vacation of the ex parte ad interim injunction dated 14.12.2018, was allowed.

Factual Context

2. Relaxo is engaged in the manufacturing and selling of various kinds of footwear and claims that it commenced its business in the year 1976. On 21.06.2017, Relaxo was granted registration of its design relating to footwear (slippers) under The Designs Act, 2000 (hereafter `the Designs Act') being the design registration bearing no. 294938 (hereafter `Subject Design'). Relaxo claims that the aforementioned design is novel and unique in particular in respect of the surface pattern, cuts, ridges, curves, graphics.

3. Relaxo claims that the Subject Design was originally created with its in-house design team along with a design agency based in the United Kingdom known, as `The Footsoldiers'. In the year 2018, Relaxo discovered that Aqualite was manufacturing and selling the products, which it claims infringed the Subject Design. In the month of December 2018, Relaxo filed a suit being [no. CS(COMM) No. 1288/2018] before this Court. Relaxo claimed urgent interim relief in the suit (interlocutory application no. 17103/2018) and by an order dated 14.12.2018, the learned Single Judge passed an ad interim order, inter alia restraining Aqualite from infringing the Subject Design. Aqualite preferred an appeal being [no. FAS(OS)(COMM) 21/2019] impugning the order dated 14.12.2018. The said appeal was disposed of with liberty given to Aqualite, to file an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC.

4. Aqualite filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC [being IA no. 1419/2019] which was listed on 30.01.2019. The impugned judgement indicates that on the said date, the learned Single Judge directed the parties to carry out a market survey to ascertain the availability of third-party products similar to the infringing product. On 01.02.2019, Relaxo filed a reply to Aqualite's aforementioned interlocutory application.

The Impugned Judgment

5. The impugned judgment is premised, essentially, on four, prima facie, findings. First, the learned Single Judge found that the market survey conducted by the parties pursuant to the order dated 30.01.2019, indicated that there were third-party products available in the market, which were similar to the Subject Design.

6. Second, the learned Single Judge reasoned that Relaxo claimed novelty in respect of the combination of colours and the placement of the label indicating the maximum retail price (MRP), but its application for registration of the Subject Design did not include any such claim of novelty.

7. Third, the learned Single Judge took note of the letter dated 18.01.2019 sent by a Chinese manufacturer stating that the strap of the footwear in the Subject Design was introduced in the market seven or eight years ago and had become very popular since the year 2016. Fourth, the learned Single Judge observed that the Subject Design appeared to be common to trade.

8. In view of the aforesaid findings, the learned Single Judge expressed a prima facie view that the Subject Design lacked novelty and originality.

The Appeal

9. Relaxo assails the impugned judgment on several grounds. First, it is submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in drawing a conclusion regarding the novelty and originality of the Subject Design by referring to the market survey conducted by the parties. The learned counsel appearing for Relaxo contended that