IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Sirona Hygiene Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Amazon Seller Services Private Limited & Ors. – Respondents
CS(COMM) 503 of 2022 & I.A.20127 of 2022, I.A.458 of 2023, I.A.2491 of 2023, I.A.4887 of 2023
Decided On : 14-03-2023
Design Infringement - Alleged design infringement of 'PEE BUDDY' - Designs Act 2000, Section 22(1) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the alleged design infringement under Section 22(1) of the Designs Act 2000, focusing on the novelty and originality of the design, and the registration of assignment deed under Sections 30(1), (3), and (5). The court also addressed the suppression of facts and the application of Section 19(1)(b) of the Patents Act.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved alleged design infringement of 'PEE BUDDY' by Defendant 7. The plaintiff asserted Design 263764, certified in 2014, and accused Defendant 7 of manufacturing and selling identical devices. The court examined the novelty and originality of the design, registration of assignment deed, and alleged suppression of facts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the design of Defendant 7's product was identical to the suit design, and rejected Defendant 7's contentions of lack of novelty and originality. The court also ruled in favor of the plaintiff regarding the registration of the assignment deed and suppression of facts. The court held that the plaintiff made out a prima facie case justifying an injunction against Defendant 7.
Issues: The issues included the alleged design infringement, validity of the suit design, registration of assignment deed, suppression of facts, and the application of Section 19(1)(b) of the Patents Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding of identical design, rejection of lack of novelty and originality, acceptance of the registration of the assignment deed, and dismissal of the suppression of facts. The court also clarified that Section 19(1)(b) did not apply to the case.
Final Decision: The court granted an injunction against Defendant 7, restraining them from manufacturing, marketing, or selling the infringing product. The court also decreed the suit in terms of settlement with Defendant 14 and Defendant 2, and allowed the plaintiff's application to place additional documents on record.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
I.A.20127/2022 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC)
1. By this judgement, I proceed to decide the present application, which seeks interim injunctive relief against the defendants.
2. There are fifteen defendants, of which the allegedly infringing defendants are Defendants 3 to 15. Of these defendants, the suit stands settled and decree sheet drawn up in respect of Defendants 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and attempts at settlement of the dispute with Defendants 15 are in progress.
3. Defendant 9 has remained absent in these proceedings. The only surviving defendants are Defendant 1-Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd and Defendant 7, who continues to contest the plaint.
4. As such, this plaint survives for consideration only vis-`-vis Defendant 7.
5. I have heard Mr. Vaibhav Vutts, learned Counsel for the plaintiff and Mr. Anil Kumar Sahu, learned Counsel for Defendant 7, at considerable length.
6. The present case is one of alleged design infringement. The plaintiff asserts Design 263764, certified in favour of the plaintiff on 30th June 2014 by the Patent Office. The design is in respect of a disposable female urination device titled 'PEE BUDDY', intended to enable females to pass urine while standing. The certificate of registration registers the suit design in its perspective view, the left side view, the right side view and the top side view, which are as under:
| Perspective view | [IMG] |
| Left side view | [IMG] |
| Right side view | [IMG] |
| Top view | [IMG] |
7. The statement of novelty, in the certification, certifies that 'novelty resides in the shape and configuration of the product'.
8. The plaintiff is aggrieved by the fact that Defendant 7 is manufacturing and selling identical devices under the name product is identical to the suit design and, therefore, constitutes piracy of the suit design within the meaning of Section 22(1)1[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 licence 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.] of the Designs Act 2000.
9. Physical samples of the plaintiff's product and the defendants' product have been handed over to the court. While the plaintiff's product is clearly reflected in the views contained in the design certificate issued to the plaintiff, a photograph of the perspective view, the left side view, the right side view and the top side view of the defendant's product may be provided thus:
| Perspective view | [IMG] |
| Left side view | [IMG] |
| Right side view | [IMG] |
| Top view | [IMG] |
10. It is clear, from a comparison of the two products that the design of the Defendant 7's product is identical to that of the plaintiff's product.
11. Indeed, Mr. Anil Kumar Sahu, learned Counsel for Defendant 7, does not dispute this fact.
Rival Submissions
12. Mr Sahu launches a three-pronged attack on the suit patent.
13. Lack of novelty and originality - Section 22(3)2[(3) In any suit or any other proceeding for relief under sub-section (2), every ground on which the registration of a design may be cancelled under Section 19 shall be available as a ground of defence.] read with Section 19(b) and (c)3[19.
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....
The court established the validity of the registered design, the infringement by the defendant, and the entitlement to rendition of accounts. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation....
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 court ruled that design piracy requires examination from the perspective of an informed user aware of prior art; the plaintiff's design not being a fraudulent or obvious imitation led to the dism....
A registered design cannot simultaneously be claimed as a trademark, and prior publication invalidates its registration under the Designs Act.
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.