The central legal point established in the judgment is that registered designs must be new and original, and prior publication by another party can invalidate the registration, as per the provisions of the Designs Act.

The plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction and for other reliefs against the defendants to restrain them from in any manner infringing upon the registered designs granted to the second plaintiff in respect of the manufacture and sale of the articles viz., Air Water Beds, Water Beds and Squared Water Seats/Water Cushion. This Original Application has been filed for interim injunction, for the same relief, till the disposal of the suit.

2. The brief contention of the plaintiff is that the second plaintiff has been granted with Certificate of Registration of design No.2258 for design No.190548 dated 27.11.2002, design No.2282 for design No.190549 dated 27.11.2002, and design No.2259 for design No.190550 dated 27.11.2002, which are produced in the typed set of papers from pages 1 to 15. The registrations were granted in the name of the second plaintiff, in respect of manufacture of the above articles and the second plaintiff by name Pradeep Ranganathan claims to be an employee of the first plaintiff.

3. The contentions of the respondents/defendants are (i) that the designs are not new and they are not original; (ii) that the designs are subject of prior publication; (iii) that the products are nothing but functional in nature; (iv) that the second plaintiff had dealings with the respondents through a company by name M/s.Neptune Inflatables and was aware of the manufacture of the Articles by the defendants since 1997.

4. A perusal of pleadings in para 3 and 4 of the Plaint would show that the features mentioned therein are more functional in nature. According to the plaintiff, the three articles viz., Water Beds, Air Water Beds and Squared water Seats/Water Cushions are used for the purpose of treatment of old and sick persons who are paralysed, immobile or partially immobile. The products are specially designed for purposes of keeping the temperature down and to provide relief from body sores and irritation on account of being constantly in bed. The novelty and specialty in the design of the three articles lies in their respective shape and configuration and in their application. The products have been designed to suit the requirements of the medical profession for the treatment and management of bedsores. The waterbeds provide equalised body pressure to the person lying on it thus reducing uneven body pressure. The designers have taken into account the shape of the human body and its contours. The designers have taken into account the medical knowledge of the body parts that are susceptible to uneven pressure. It is medically established that wen a patient lies on a bed, the weight of his body is transmitted to the bed through the points which are in contact with the bed; occiput, scapular,inter scapular regions, sacrum and heels. The rippling effect changes the distribution of the body pressure. The risk of bedsores is thus effectively neutralised. From the above pleadings it is clear that the plaintiff has concentrated more on the functional features of his products than the design.

5. At this juncture, a cursory look to the various provisions of the Designs Act would be useful. Section 2(d) of the Act deals with a "design" and it has been specifically stated that a design does not include any mode or principle of construction. One of the contention of the defendants is that the registration of the plaintiff's designs are not valid as the same is barred by Section 4 of the Designs Act viz., the designs are neither new nor original and there was a prior publication of the same designs by the defendants.

6. A perusal of the photographs of the plaintiff's products and the defendants products with regard to the water beds etc, clearly show that the designs are almost similar in nature. The functions of the products of both the applicant/plaintiff and the respondents/defendants are also identical. Section 4(a) of the Designs Act does not include a design which is not new or original and if the same design is p