IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Inderjeet Singh, J.
Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor & Anr. – Appellant
Versus
Tomar Enterprises & Ors. – Respondent
S.B. Other Original Suit No. 1/2021 Connected with S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 549/2021
Decided On : 28-11-2022
Suit for infringement and perpetual injunction under Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000 - Plaintiff claimed infringement of their registered design of air cooler by the defendants - Defendants contended that their design was different and they had also registered their design - Court held that a registered proprietor of a design can file a suit for infringement against a registered proprietor of a design - Court found that the defendants' design was substantially different from the plaintiffs' design and dismissed the suit.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for infringement and perpetual injunction under Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000, alleging that the defendants had infringed their registered design of an air cooler. The defendants contended that their design was different and they had also registered their design.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that a registered proprietor of a design can file a suit for infringement against a registered proprietor of a design. The court found that the defendants' design was substantially different from the plaintiffs' design and dismissed the suit.
Issues: Whether a registered proprietor of a design can file a suit for infringement against a registered proprietor of a design.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a registered proprietor of a design can file a suit for infringement against a registered proprietor of a design. The court found that the defendants' design was substantially different from the plaintiffs' design and dismissed the suit.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the suit.
ORDER
1. At the request & consent of the respective learned Senior Counsels for the parties, the matter has been heard on the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC.
2. Brief facts which are relevant for disposal of the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC are that a suit came to be filed by the plaintiffs for infringement & perpetual injunction under Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act of 2000) against the defendants in the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metro-II, Jaipur along with the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking temporary injunction during pendency of the said suit. According to the plaintiffs, they are engaged in the activity of research and development of novel and unique designs of air cooler and also in the business of manufacturing, marketing, selling and exporting the air coolers across the country and to several foreign countries also. The plaintiffs applied for registration of design of their cooler with the Controller General of Patent, Design and Trademark (hereinafter to be referred as Controller) on 27.12.2010. The said design was duly registered by the Controller and originally it was for ten years and as per the provisions of the Act of 2000, said registered design, according to the plaintiffs, is deemed to have been extended upto 26.12.2025. It was further stated by the plaintiffs in the suit that after registration of the said design, they started manufacturing, selling and exporting the products of their air cooler in the market extensively and continuously. The details of model name and number have been mentioned in para no.13 of suit, which are as under :-
"i. Model Name AntarcticAR, Model No.:AR09GC, AK09GC, AR09LC, AK09LC, AR12LC, AK12LC, AR12GC & AK12GC.
ii. Model Name TentcooleRR, Model, TK09GB, TK09LB, TK12GB & TK12LB."
It was further stated by the plaintiffs that they have incurred huge expenditure towards publicize their products and the promotional expenses and their sales turnover has also been disclosed in the suit, mention of which finds place in para no.14 & 15 of the suit respectively and in support thereof the certificates issued by the Chartered Accountant have been placed on record in the form of Annexure-H & Annexure-I respectively. As alleged in the suit, it came to the notice of the plaintiffs that the defendants have started infringement of their design by selling same type of coolers, which information stood confirmed to the plaintiffs in February, 2021. It was also stated in the suit that when the plaintiffs found that the defendant no.2 is selling the coolers of plaintiffs’ registered design, either themselves or through registered dealers at commercial/market levels after copying and manufacturing the registered design of the plaintiffs, then they filed the original suit before the District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metro-II, Jaipur along with temporary injunction application. The learned Court below by an ad-interim order 26.02.2021 restrained the defendants from manufacturing & selling the registered design number 233559 of the plaintiffs. An application was filed by the defendant no.4 to the effect that in view of the provisions of Section 22(4) of the Act of 2000 the suit along with temporary injunction application be transferred to the High Court for consideration, which was not that seriously opposed by the plaintiffs, however submitted that the interim order granted in their favour be allowed to be continued till the first date of hearing before the High Court, upon which the matter was referred to this Court and came to be registered here as S.B. Other Original Suit No.1/2021 and being listed before this Court after its assignment, along with two other connected civil misc. appeals no.549/2021 & 612/2021 filed by the defendants challenging the orders passed by the courts below
The court ruled that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case of design infringement, necessitating the maintenance of the interim injunction against the defendants based on failure to prove pri....
The onus to prove lack of novelty or originality in a design as a ground of defence against design piracy lies with the defendants, and unsubstantiated claims cannot invalidate the plaintiff's copyri....
The court established the validity of the registered design, the infringement by the defendant, and the entitlement to rendition of accounts. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation....
The court ruled that design piracy requires examination from the perspective of an informed user aware of prior art; the plaintiff's design not being a fraudulent or obvious imitation led to the dism....
The Designs Act protects novelty and originality in registered designs, with a focus on visual appeal to determine design piracy.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.