The lawsuit became infructuous due to the lapse of the design registration, which nullified the basis for seeking a permanent injunction.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present suit was filed seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of registered design bearing no. 194631 dated 23rd February, 2004 in class 21-01 in respect of a `BOOM SCOOTY', as also reliefs for passing off, delivery up, damages rendition of accounts, etc. The case of the Plaintiff was that the Defendants were infringing the said Scooty design, and had imitated various features of the same including the shape, configuration, and arrangement of features.

3. Defendant No.1/Mr. Aftab Ahmed is stated to be the main manufacturer of the Scooty and the other Defendant Nos. 2-5 were engaged in the business of manufacturing plastic toys. Defendant nos. 6&7 were stated to be the owners of the moulding machine used to manufacture the impugned design. The reliefs sought in the suit are as under:

"a) An order for permanent injunction restraining the defendants through their partners or proprietor as the case may be, their servants, wholesalers, retailers, dealers, distributors and vendors from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, directly or indirectly dealing in toy scooters, which are an infringement or imitation of plaintiff s registered design No. 194631 including any of the features set out in the table in paragraph 9;

b) An order for permanent injunction restraining the defendants through their partners or proprietor as the case may be, their servants, wholesalers, retailers, dealers, distributors and vendors from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, directly or indirectly dealing in toy scooter, which are identical to or deceptively similar in their shape, configuration, and arrangement of features to the plaintiff's toy scooter sold under the mark Boom Scooty or do any other thing as would result in confusion and deception amounting to passing off of the defendants' goods as and for those of the plaintiff.

c) an order of rendition of account of profit illegally earned by the defendants on account of use of the impugned design of the toy scooter and a decree be passed in favour of the Plaintiff of the amount so ascertained;

d) An order for delivery up for purposes of destruction and/or erasure of all the impugned material including the scooters, whether finished or unfinished, blocks, dies and all other implements used by he defendants in aid of its infringing scheme,

e) An order for costs in the proceedings, and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case."

4. Written statements were filed on behalf of all Defendants except Defendant No.2. Vide order dated 11th August, 2005 an ex parte order of injunction was granted in the following terms:

"Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused die averments and allegations made in the application, plaint and the documents obtaining on record. It would show that the plaintiff got the design of its toy scooter registered under die design No. 194631 and defendant has stalled manufacturing and selling identical or similar toy scooters of similar shape and configuration which prima facie amounts to infringement of the plaintiffs registered design. This Court is satisfied that there is an urgent need to pass ex-parte orders so as to contain the said infringement.

Issue notice to the defendants for the date fixed i.e., 21st September, 2005. Till the next date of hearing the defendants itself or through their partners or proprietor, agents, servants, wholesales, retailers, dealers, distributors and vendors are restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, directly or indirectly dealing in toy sooters, which are