IMPORTANT POINTS
" Suit filed by a plaintiff to protect his statutory rights, flowing from registration obtained under the Designs Act would decidedly based on elements which are found in S.2(d) and S.11 read with the exclusions provided in S.4 of the Designs Act.
" The plaintiff would aver that he had secured for himself a design as defined in S.2(d) in respect of which a certificate of registration has been issued, the registration is valid in terms of the provisions of S.11, the plaintiff is the inventor (or in a given case a lawful assignee) of the design which is new or novel or significantly distinguishable from any known designs or any combination of known designs, and that, the defendant is applying the plaintiff`s registered design or its fraudulent or obvious imitation without his consent or license- The suit is brought to injunct piracy of the registered design by the defendant in terms of S.22 of the Designs Act.
" The plaintiffs have a registration of rainwater gutter under the Act as mentioned above-They cannot claim any exclusive right in respect of the principles of operation or invention which ought to be made the subject of a patent. It is also evident that merely providing a ribbed pattern design, prima facie it cannot be held that the plaintiffs have created a novel shape, configuration or pattern
" The products manufactured and marketed by the appellants also have ribs on the top of the water gutter.
" The appellants` product is a colourable imitation of the respondents` design also prima facie cannot be accepted in the light of the factual and legal position emerging in this case.

Appellants are the defendants in O.S.No.20 of 2018 before the District Judge, Ernakulam, a suit filed by the respondents invoking the provisions of Designs Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) praying, inter alia, to restrain the appellants from using the registered design of the respondents or any other design identical or deceptively similar to that of the respondents in manufacturing rainwater gutters and allied products. Along with the suit, an application for temporary injunction as I.A.No.3452 of 2018 was also filed. Court below, on considering the evidence produced and after hearing both sides, passed a temporary injunction in the following manner:

“a. Petition is allowed;

b. The respondents and their men are restrained from using the registered design of the petitioners' in manufacturing rainwater gutters and similar products in any of the respondents' business, establishments or in any of their advertisements, pending disposal of the suit.

c. The petitioners are entitled to get the costs of this petition.”

2. 1st plaintiff is a registered partnership firm incorporated under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. 2nd plaintiff is a partner of the 1st plaintiff firm. 1st defendant is yet another partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of plastic and plastic related products. According to the plaint averments, 2nd defendant is a subsidiary and sister concern of the 1st defendant firm. It is averred that defendants 3 and 4 are the partners of the 1st defendant firm.

3. 1st plaintiff firm was constituted for the purpose of carrying on business in manufacturing PVC pipes and other related activities. During 2009, the 1st plaintiff firm introduced PVC rainwater gutters into the market. Fine crafting and design techniques adopted by the 1st plaintiff soon gained popularity in the market and it became one of the leading market players in manufacture and sale of PVC rainwater gutters.

4. While so, the plaintiffs ideated and came out with a novel design for rainwater gutters which can be fixed on to the outside portion of houses/buildings to enable free flow of rainwater. Normal rainwater gutters are in “half C” shape. Plaintiffs designed and manufactured a unique pattern design which enabled more efficient flow of rainwater and gave additional strength to the gutter. Leaf guard provided to the gutter prevented blockade in the gutter, thereby ensuring free flow. Leaf guard was provided with an easy to use lock fittings. Stronger and sharper edges could support larger water flow than “half C” shaped rainwater gutters. The said design aesthetically pleases eyes and blends with any building design. According to the plaint case, 1st plaintiff firm is one among the manufacturers who introduced PVC rainwater gutters in different colours that could match with colour of the roof and wall. Trade name adopted by the plaintiffs is “Euro Guard”.

5. 1st plaintiff in order to protect uniqueness in their product composition and design filed an application for patent registration for the designs vide design No.265829 with effect from 22.09.2014. 1st plaintiff was granted design certificate under class 23-01 dated 22.04.2016 by patent office with effect from 22.09.2014 under the Act. 1st plaintiff has been manufacturing, marketing and selling the aforesaid products under the brand name “Euro Guard” all over India, especially in Kerala, Karnataka, Maharashtra and some other States.

6. Design of rainwater gutter with the brand name “Eruo Guard” has earned a very high reputation in the market for the aesthetically pleasing design. In addition to the above, ease of assembling and disassembling, rigidity and ability to carry large amounts of rainwater, high quality of materials used and leaf guard facilities also have contributed to its quality.

7. Suddenly the plaintiffs noticed a fall in their market share of PVC rainwater gutters and on enquiry it has come to their knowledge that the defendants 3 and 4, who are the ex-sales representat