IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
Dream Care Furnishings Pvt. Ltd. - Plaintiff
Versus
Meena Enterprises and Anr. - Defendants
CS (COMM) No. 184 Of 2021
Decided On : 11-04-2022
Design Infringement - Interim Injunction - Designs Act, 2000 - [Bedsheet Design Infringement] - [Designs Act, 2000, Section 22(4)] - The court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using, manufacturing, selling, or advertising products bearing the plaintiff's registered designs. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case and that the defendants' actions infringed the plaintiff's design rights. However, upon considering evidence of prior publication of the designs, the court vacated the interim injunction, requiring the defendants to maintain sales accounts and allowing them to de-seal the seized products.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff sought permanent injunction against design infringement and passing off in respect of 17 design registrations for bedsheets and other covering materials. The Defendants challenged the validity of the designs, alleging prior publication and lack of novelty. The Commercial Court granted an interim injunction in favor of the Plaintiff, which was later vacated by the present Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Plaintiff had initially made out a strong prima facie case for design infringement, leading to the grant of an interim injunction. However, upon considering evidence of prior publication of the designs, the Court vacated the interim injunction, requiring the Defendants to maintain sales accounts and allowing them to de-seal the seized products.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the Plaintiff's registered designs, the alleged prior publication of the designs, and whether the Defendants' actions constituted design infringement and passing off.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the evidence of prior publication of the designs, which led to the finding that the designs were not novel and, therefore, not entitled to protection. This influenced the Court's decision to vacate the interim injunction.
Final Decision: The interim injunction was vacated, and the Defendants were required to maintain sales accounts and allowed to de-seal the seized products. Notice was issued to Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. to file an affidavit regarding the dates of the product designs available on its website.
JUDGMENT :
(Prathiba M. Singh, J.)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
I.A. 5666/2021(for stay) & I.A. 9205/2021(u/O XXXIX RULE 4)
2. These are two applications, one for interim injunction filed by the Plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 and one for vacation of stay filed by the Defendants under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC.
3. The Plaintiff- M/s Dream Care Furnishings Pvt. Ltd. has filed the present suit seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement and passing off in respect of 17 design registrations falling in class 6-13 in respect of “Bedsheet (Blanket and other covering material)” which are registered in its favour. The said suit has been filed against Defendant No.1- M/s Meena Enterprises and Defendant No.2- Sant kumar Goyal, who operate under the trading name & style ‘Stylista’. The suit was filed on the basis of the design registrations which date back to 16th October, 2018, 26th October, 2018 and 6th January, 2020.
4. The case of the Plaintiff is that it has huge sales of products based on these designs to the tune of approximately Rs.20 crores in the year 2019- 2020 till the month of February. The said designs are used upon various covering materials for appliances as also dining table covers, bedsheets, blankets, etc. In the second week of December, 2019, the Plaintiff noticed that the Defendants were offering products for sale bearing the registered designs of the Plaintiff. A legal notice dated 10th December, 2019 was addressed by the Plaintiff to the Defendants asking the Defendants to cease and desist from using design similar to Plaintiff’s design. In its reply dated 10th January, 2020, the Defendants took the stand that the Plaintiff has got the designs registered fraudulently as the said designs existed for the last several years and were manufactured and distributed by companies at large.
5. Thereafter the present suit was filed before the District Judge (Commercial Court-01), South East/Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter “Commercial Court”). Vide an order dated 14th January, 2021, the Commercial Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction order against the Defendants and appointed a Local Commissioner to visit the premises of the Defendants and seize the impugned products. The operative portion of the order reads as under:
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of establishing novelty and prior publication in design infringement cases, which can influence the grant or vacation of interim inj....
The court ruled that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case of design infringement, necessitating the maintenance of the interim injunction against the defendants based on failure to prove pri....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the protection of design rights under the Designs Act 2000, focusing on the novelty and originality of the design, registration of assignment deed,....
The onus to prove lack of novelty or originality in a design as a ground of defence against design piracy lies with the defendants, and unsubstantiated claims cannot invalidate the plaintiff's copyri....
Mere registration of a design does not automatically entitle the registrant to claim protection. The protection of essential features and the extent of similarity in designs are crucial in determinin....
A registered design cannot simultaneously be claimed as a trademark, and prior publication invalidates its registration under the Designs Act.
The presumption of receipt under Rule 3 establishes that an application is deemed filed when sent, and overlapping claims in design and trademark are permissible for registration.
An interim injunction for design infringement requires clear demonstrable novelty; mere similarity is insufficient, emphasizing the criteria of prior publication and trade variant in assessing design....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.