JUDGMENT

C. Hari Shankar, J.

I.A. 725/2022 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC)

Introduction

1. Two seminal issues arise, albeit at an interlocutory stage, for consideration in the present case. They arise in the following factual scenario. The plaintiffs alleges piracy, by the defendant, within the meaning of Section 22(1)¹ of the Designs Act, 2000 of their registered Design No. 306577. The defendant, invoking Section 22(3)² read with Section 19(1)(b) and (c)³ , alleges, per contra, that the plaintiffs' design is bad on account of prior publication, and is lacking in novelty and originality vis-a-vis prior art in the form of two designs, one of which is Design No D562138 and the other to which allusion would be made in para 49 infra. The plaintiffs, in defence, impressed on certain distinguishing features of the suit design vis-a-vis said prior art, to assert the claim of the suit design to novelty and originality, and, consequently, validity. That argument already stands accepted by this Court in its judgement in Diageo Brands B.V. & anr. v. Great Galleon Ventures Pvt. Ltd, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2350 (referred to, hereinafter, as "Diageo v. Great Galleon") which, conse