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 of the Designs Act, 2000, particularly Sections 19, 22(1), 2(d), and 9(3).

ORDER (Oral)

C. Hari Shankar, J.

1. The plaintiff pleads infringement, by the defendant, of the design of a cooker, registered in favour of the plaintiff vide Registration No. 197906 by the Design Office in the Patent Office, Government of India. The various views in respect of the suit design, in terms of which registration has been granted are as under:

[IMG]

[IMG]

The certificate of registration certifies, as in most cases, that 'novelty resides in respect of the shape and configuration of the cooker as illustrated'.

2. The suit was originally filed before the learned District Judge (Commercial Court) as CS (Comm) 1892/2019. Consequent on completion of pleadings and admission and denial of documents, the following issues were framed by the learned Commercial Court on 4 September 2019:

(1) Whether the suit filed by the DH is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as alleged Registration of the plaintiff is invalid and is liable to be cancelled under the provisions of Section 19¹[19. Cancellation of registration. -
(1) Any person interested may present a petition for the cancellation of the registration of a design at any time after the registration of the design, to the Controller on any of the following grounds, namely:
(a) that the design has been previously registered in India; or
(b) that it has been published in India or in any other country prior to the date of registration; or
(c) that the design is not a new or original design; or
(d) that the design is not registrable under this Act; or
(e) that it is not a design as defined under clause (d) of Section 2.] of the Designs Act, 2000? OPD

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction as per sub clause (a) of the prayer clause? OPP

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for delivery up of the infringing goods of the defendant, as per sub clause (b) of the prayer clause? OPP

(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as per sub clause (c) of the prayer clause? OPP

(5) Relief.

3. The suit has been heard finally, after completion of pleadings, framing of issues, and recording of evidence.

4. The plaintiff alleges that the design of the pressure cookers manufactured and sold by the defendant are obviously or fraudulently imitative of the registered suit designs, within the meaning of Section 22(1)²[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 and that, therefore, the defendant is guilty of design piracy under the said provision. The plaint provides the following photographs of the defendant's products and the plaintiff's products, which stand exhibited as Ex. PW-1/9 and Ex. PW-1/4, respectively.

Plaintiff's Pressure Handi Cookers

[IMG]

=Defendant's Pressure Handi Cookers

[IMG]

5. Physical samples of the rival products have also been produced in Court before me, and the photographs as reproduced hereinabove faithfully replicate the actual products.

6. Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the plaintiff submits t