JUDGMENT

I.A. 6940/2021 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC)

1. By this judgment, I proceed to dispose of IA 6940/2021, filed by the plaintiffs Kent RO Systems Ltd. under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

2. Detailed arguments on this application have been advanced by learned Counsel Ms. Rajeshwari H. on behalf of the plaintiffs and by Mr. Mohan Vidhani on behalf of Defendant 1.

A Conspectus

3. The grievance of the plaintiffs is that Design No. 219309 dated 17th October 2008, which stands registered in favour of the plaintiff as its proprietor in respect of a "water purifier" has been infringed by various entities, who sell water purifiers bearing allegedly infringing designs on the Flipkart website, owned and managed by Defendant 2 (hereinafter referred to as "Flipkart").

4. A tabular statement of the water purifiers bearing allegedly infringing designs and sold over Flipkart is provided in para 25 of the plaint. Of these, the water purifiers at serial nos. 3, 6 and 10 are manufactured by Defendant 1 Pushpender Yadav, as is also admitted by Defendant 1 in para 24 of the written statement filed by him by way of response to the plaint. Defendant 1 has, however, disclaimed any knowledge or connection with the water purifiers at serial nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12.

5. This Court had, vide order dated 2nd August 2021, directed Flipkart to place on record the details of the persons whose water purifiers were being sold under the URLs at serial nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12, as well as other products alleged to be imitatively similar in design to the suit design and figuring at pages 212 to 271 of the documents filed with the plaint. The said list has been provided by Defendant 2 under affidavit dated 10th August 2021. Subsequently, IA 11227/2021 has been filed by the plaintiff to implead 13 of the said sellers as Defendants 3 to 15 in the plaint. I have not been informed of any orders having been passed on the said application till date. In any event, the relief that the plaintiff can seek can only be, at the highest, against the said Defendants 3 to 15 whom the plaintiffs seek to implead in the present proceedings, apart from Defendant 1.

6. Arguments in the present case were addressed only by the Plaintiffs and Defendant 1. The proposed Defendants 3 to 15 had yet to be arrayed as parties till the reserving of judgment in the present application. This order shall, therefore, be restricted to Defendant 1.

Facts

7. The plaint

7.1. The case set up by the plaintiff may be set out thus.

7.2. Plaintiff 2 Mahesh Gupta adopted, on 9th February 1998, the KENT mark for oil/petroleum products. In 1999, Kent RO Systems was founded as a partnership firm by Plaintiff 2. Subsequently, the firm was incorporated as a public limited company M/s Kent RO Systems Ltd. by Plaintiff 2 in 1999.

7.3. Reverse Osmosis (RO) based water purifiers are asserted to have been introduced, in the Indian market, by the plaintiffs in 1999. Plaintiff 2 is stated to have devised and to be holding Copyright Registration No. A-97193/2013 dated 12th February 2013 in the [IMG] logo, under which Plaintiff 2 was manufacturing and selling its RO based water purifiers. It is further asserted, in the plaint, that the aforesaid copyright registration was licensed by Plaintiff 2 to Plaintiff 1.

7.4. Subsequently, on 17th October 2008, the Controller of Designs issued Certificate No. 219309 under the Designs Act, 2000, registering the suit design in favour of Plaintiff 2 for a "water purifier". Registration was granted, as is usual, of all views of the design, viz.

[IMG]

FRONT VIEW

[IMG]

BACK VIEW

[IMG]

TOP VIEW

[IMG]

BOTTOM VIEW

[IMG]

SIDE VIEW

7.5. Below each view, the following recital figured:

"Novelt