The judgment reaffirms that registered designs are protected against infringement, allowing plaintiffs to recover damages based on lost profits when infringement occurs.

JUDGMENT

1. The plaintiff instituted this suit against Asia Fibre Glass Products, Ghaziabad and A.S. Aslam (presumably proprietor of Asia Fibre Glass Products), for permanent injunction to restrain infringement by the defendants of the registered design of the plaintiff and passing off by the defendants of their helmet as that of the plaintiff and for ancillary reliefs.

2. The suit along with the application for interim relief came up before this Court first on 30th May, 2013, when though summons/notice thereof were ordered to be issued but no ex parte relief sought granted.

3. Pleadings were completed. Vide order dated 9th September, 2016, in view of Mohan Lal Vs. Sona Paint & Hardwares, AIR 2013 Del 143, option was given to the plaintiff to elect whether wanted to maintain this suit as on the ground of infringement of design or on the ground of passing off. Vide the same order, the application of the plaintiff for interim relief was also dismissed. The plaintiff opted to continue the suit as for infringement of design and vide order dated 5th December, 2016, amendment of the plaint was allowed and the amended plaint taken on record. The defendants though had filed written statement earlier, did not file written statement to the amended plaint and vide order dated 6th December, 2017.

4. The case of the plaintiff as per the amended plaint is, that (i) the defendants were found to be engaged in manufacturing and selling helmets bearing the design identical to the plaintiff's design no.241153; (ii) the subject product of the plaintiff bears novel and distinctive features of shape, configuration and surface pattern; (iii) the registration no.241153 was granted on 1st December, 2011 and subsists; (iv) the shape, configuration and surface pattern of the subject design is distinctive and unique to the plaintiff's helmet; (v) the plaintiff has also obtained registrations of several other designs with respect to designs of helmets, auto accessories etc.; (vi) the plaintiff has been using the helmet under design no.241153 since January, 2012, and has marketed and promoted the said products in India and abroad on a substantial scale; (vii) the plaintiff's product under the subject design has met with substantial success and came to be exclusively identified by members of trade and public in general with the plaintiff and the plaintiff has substantial goodwill and reputation with respect to the subject design; (viii) in the year 2015-16, the plaintiff sold 2,57,139 helmets of the subject design for a total value of Rs.14,01,51,833/-; (ix) the product of the defendants with the design of the plaintiff is known as "Monarch"; and, (x) a bare perusal of the product of the plaintiff with that of the defendants would show blatant copying by the defendants of the plaintiff's design.

5. The defendants contested the suit pleading, that (i) no part of cause of action has accrued within the jurisdiction of this Court; (ii) the registration in favour of the plaintiff is illegal; (iii) the shape of the helmet is commonplace and derived from a combination of known shapes which were pre-existing on the date of registration of design no.241153; (iv) the registration of the design is in contravention of Section 19 read with Sections 4 and 6 of the DESIGNS ACT , 2000; (v) there cannot be any scope of monopoly over the shape of the helmet as there are very limited ways of making helmets and hence the shape of the helmet has no peculiarity or originality; (vi) the plaintiff is guilty of delay and laches; the defendants have been carrying on their business for 7-8 years prior to filing the written s