JUDGMENT :

IA 14683/2021 [u/O XXXIX Rules 1 & 2, CPC]

1. The plaintiff is engaged in the manufacture of the LYNCUS range of switch plates among others. The plaintiff alleges that the MATTEO range of switch plates manufactured and sold by the defendant infringes Design Registration Nos. 296178, 296179 and 296180 held by the plaintiff in respect of its LYNCUS switch plates. Design No. 296178 relates to a square switch plate, Design No. 296179 relates to a rectangular switch plate and Design No. 296180 relates to a double switch plate. The views of the various switch plates, along with the corresponding designs, as provided in the plaint, may be reproduced as under :

Views of Design 296178

Views of Design 296179

Views of Design 296180

2. The views of the said design, as registered by the Controller of designs, are as under :

Views of Design 296178

3. The design registration as granted to the plaintiff by the controller of designs certifies that novelty, in each view of the design, resides in its "shape and configuration". The plaintiff has sought to identify the common distinguishing features of the shape and configuration of the various switch plates as

(i) its central surface, which is raised and convex and which tapers down towards the four corners,

(ii) a convex-cum-concave periphery, in which the four lateral peripheries of the switch plate are convex in the middle and become progressively concave towards the four corners, and

(iii) thumb-pressed corners, in which the four corners have small indents giving a thumb-pressed impression.

Physical samples of the plaintiffs switch plates have been shown to the Court. The aforesaid features as outlined in the plaint are, prima facie, present in the plaintiff's switch plates, forming subject matter of dispute.

4. The plaintiff applied for registration of all the aforesaid three designs on 27th July 2017. Designs No. 296178, 296179 and 296180 were granted registration on 2nd September 2019, 12th September 2017 and 20th September 2017 respectively. By operation of Section 5(6), [5. Application for registration of designs.-

*****

(6) A design when registered shall be registered as of the date of the application for registration.] of the Designs Act, the registration would date back to the date of application. All the three registrations would, therefore, be deemed to have been granted to the plaintiff on 27th July 2017.

5. The plaint also provides the details of the returns from sales of the products carrying the suit designs, over the years. However, for the limited purposes of the order being passed today, it is not necessary to make reference thereto.

6. The plaint alleges that the design of the MATTEO range of switch plates of the defendant infringes the suit designs, within the meaning of Section 22, [22. Piracy of registered design.—

(1) During the existence of copyright in any design it shall not be lawful for any person –

(a) for the purpose of sale to apply or cause to be applied to any article in any class of articles in which the design is registered, the design or any fraudulent or obvious imitation thereof, except with the license or written consent of the registered proprietor, or to do anything with a view to enable the design to be so applied; or

(b) to import for the purposes of sale, without the consent of the registered proprietor, any article belonging to the class in which the design has been registered, and having applied to it the design or any fraudulent or obvious imitation thereof; or

(c) knowing that the design or any fraudulent or obvious imitation thereof has been applied to any article in any class of articles in which the design is registered without the consent of the registered proprietor, to publish or expose or cause to be published or exposed for sale that article.

(2) If any person acts in contravention of this section, he shall be liable for every contravention—

(a)