Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 3635
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
Maya Appliances, Chennai
Versus
Urooj Ahmed, Lords Enterprises (India), Delhi & Another
O.A.Nos.1096 & 1097 of 2008 & Application No.4695 of 2008 in C.S.No.949 of 2008
Decided On : 10-09-2009
For the Appellant:T.V. Ramanujun, SC, M.N. Surya Senthil, Advocate.
For the Respondents:V.P. Raman, Advocate.
The court emphasized the importance of establishing jurisdiction and a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction in cases of infringement and passing off.
Headnote:
Infringement - Design - Copyright Act, 1957, Designs Act, 2000 - Section 62(2), Section 11 - The court discussed the infringement of the registered design of the plaintiff and the jurisdiction of the court under the Copyright Act, 1957 read with Section 11 of the Designs Act, 2000.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the registered design and passing off their goods as that of the plaintiffs. The plaintiff claimed to have invested a significant amount in developing and marketing their products and had obtained design registration for their products.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had not shown that they were carrying on business within the jurisdiction of the court, and one isolated purchase could not create jurisdiction for the court to deal with the matter. The court also noted that the defendants had registration of the design and their product had a different color, and therefore, the plaintiff had not made out a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the court, infringement of registered design, passing off of goods, validity of design registration, and balance of convenience.
Ratio Decidendi: The court dismissed the applications for injunction as the plaintiff failed to establish jurisdiction and a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction. The court also considered the defendants' registration of the design and the differences in the color of their product.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the applications for injunction and the question of appointing an Advocate Commissioner did not arise. No costs were awarded.
Heard both sides. All the three applications were filed by the plaintiff.
2. The suit is filed by the applicant/plaintiff, seeking for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, employees, representatives or any one claiming through or under them, from in any manner infringing the registered design bearing No.198147 comprised in/reproduced on the plaintiffs products, also for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from in any manner passing off the defendants goods as that of the plaintiffs by selling, advertising, offering to sell, using the plaintiffs trade dress or any mark or product which is identical with or deceptively similar or confusingly similar to the plaintiffs trade dress of the products, also for a direction to the defendants to surrender to the plaintiff for destruction all the infringing goods and associated items such as moulds, dies, articles, packets, cartons, packaging materials, advertising materials etc. and all other things used in connection with the manufacture or marketing of the infringing goods and also for a direction to the defendants to pay compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-to the plaintiff by way of damages for the infringement ad the loss suffered by the plaintiff.
3. The suit was admitted on 29.09.2009. Pending the suit, these three applications were taken out by the plaintiff.
4. O.A.No.1096 of 2008 is for an ad-interim injunction, restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, employees, representatives or anyone claiming through or under them, from in any manner infringing the registered design bearing No.198147 comprises in/reproduced on the plaintiffs products.
5. O.A.No.1097 of 2008 is for an interim injunction to restrain the defendants, their servants, agents, employees, representatives or anyone claiming through or under them, from in any manner passing off the defendants goods as that of the plaintiffs by selling, advertising, offering to sell, using the plaintiffs trade dress or any mark or product which is identical with or deceptively similar or confusingly similar to the plaintiffs trade dress of the products.
6. A.No.4695 of 2008 is filed seeking for an appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to conduct a local inspection of the place of the defendants, take an inventory and seize all infringing goods and associated items such as moulds, dies, articles, packets, cartons, packaging materials, advertising materials etc. and all other things used in connection with the manufacture or marketing of the infringing goods and to produce them before the court and to file his report.
7. In all the three applications, initially only notice was ordered on 010. 2008. In the meanwhile, the respondents/defendants filed an application in A.No.5533 of 2008 for rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. This Court, by an order, dated 19.01.2009, held that the suit has to be construed as a suit for infringement of the copyright in the registered design of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff has got the design registered and the registration of the design was still in force. Therefore, by virtue of Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 read with Section 11 of the Designs Act, 2000, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It was also found that the plaintiff was residing within the jurisdiction of this court and carrying on business within the jurisdiction and the suit is, therefore, maintainable.
8. In the common affidavit filed in support of the applications, it was stated that the plaintiff Company had invested Rs.80 Crores and they are the manufacturers of Preethi range of home appliances and were the undisputed pioneer and market leader in the household kitchen appliances since 1978. They are manufacturing, marketing and exporting mixer grinders, microwave ovens, electronic rice cookers, Coffee makers and other appliances. They had about 32% market share in the organized mixer grinder market. They also export to Sri
