Important Point – A plaint lacking cause of action has to be rejected.

Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.

1. Heard learned counsels for the parties.

2. By way of this appeal, the present appellants - original plaintiffs begs to challenge the order dated 27th August 2015 passed by the 7th (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur in Trade Mark Suit No. 1/2015 whereby the Ld. Judge has pleased to reject the plaint under Order - 7 Rule - 11 (d) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC').

3. The facts in brief as could be culled-out from the memo of the appeal are as under:-

4. That the plaintiffs are the leading manufacturers of plastic auxiliary equipments. The plaintiffs are manufacturing different auxiliary equipment for the plastic industries including loader/receiver. Various geometrical/engineering/mechanical drawing are prepared by the plaintiffs for the purpose of manufacturing the machines. Within the meaning of Sec. 2(c) of the Copyright Act, drawing including diagram, map, chart or plan are also included in the definition of "artistic work". Thus, the plaintiffs are owner of the copyright contained in above artistic work of diagram etc., under the Copyright Act. One artistic work, as referred above, is adopted by the plaintiffs in respect of one of its products related to loader/receiver used in the field of plastic auxiliary equipment. That the drawings of loader/receiver are quite unique. Therefore, no other one can use the said drawing i.e. diagram, map, chart, plan etc., in respect of the above drawings of loader/receiver without the permission of the plaintiffs.

5. The defendant No. 1 copied and substantially reproduced the artistic work of drawing, etc. of the plaintiffs, as referred above. Further, defendant No. 1 copied the said drawings to manufacture similar product and thereby committed infringement of the artistic work lying in the drawings itself. Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed the suit inter alia making averments that defendants have made substantial and material reproduction of the copyright in the artistic work of the drawings without any permission or licence from plaintiffs' company.

6. The suit is based on the artistic work lying in the drawings of loader/receiver itself and not for application of any feature of shaper, configuration, pattern ornament, composition of lines, etc. to any article. The said aspect is evident from the pleadings in the plaint. After issuance of the summons, the other side appeared and submitted an application under Order 7 Rule 11 r/w. 151 of CPC inter alia praying to reject the plaint.

7. After hearing both the parties, the learned Judge is pleased to allow the application and thereby rejected the plaint vide impugned order.

8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 27th August 2015, the present appellants - original plaintiffs beg to prefer this appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants filed their written submissions, which in verbatim are as under:--

"1. Plaintiff is the owner of the copyright in artistic work in drawing/diagram of its mechanical device namely Loader/Receiver which are produced with Paper Book from page 66 to 73. The said drawings are part of the patent granted by the U.S. Patent Authority. Thus, the said drawings are themselves demonstrating the mode of principle of construction/making of above machine.

2. Under Sec. 14 (c) (B) of the Copyright Act, 1957 plaintiffs have exclusive right in respect of said artistic work to reproduce the work in any material from including depiction in three dimension of two dimensional work like industrial drawing/diagram. The defendants started to infringe the above exclusive right of the plaintiffs by reproducing the above artistic work in three dimensional from i.e. manufactured identical machine. Therefore, as per Sec. 51 of the Copyright Act, the copyright is infringed and the plaintiffs filed suit for infringement of the copyright in artis