M. Sundar, J.

1. The sole plaintiff in the main suit is the lone applicant in this application. Defendants 1 and 2 in the main suit are respondents 1 and 2 respectively in this application. Parties in this application are referred to by their respective ranks in the main suit for the sake of convenience and clarity.

2. The factual matrix that unfurls from a perusal of the averments in the plaint and the affidavit filed in support of the instant application in a nutshell is as follows:

2.1 Plaintiff is engaged in the business of selling sesame oil under the brand name 'Idhayam'.

2.2 Plaintiff exports sesame oil both in its regular form as well as refined form.

2.3 Plaintiff has obtained registration of Trade Mark, but that is not subject matter of the main suit or this application.

2.4 Subject matter of the main suit and the instant application pertain to a design registration obtained by the plaintiff for the bottles in which it markets it's products.

2.5 To be noted, the design registration certificate is dated 11.01.1990 and the design' number is 161783 in class 3 under Designs Act, 1911 vide Design Registration Certificate dated 18.06.1990 (this is hereinafter referred to as 'suit design' for the sake of brevity, clarity and convenience).

2.6 Besides suit design, the main suit and the instant application complain of passing off qua colour scheme in their label.

3. As would be evident from the factual matrix in a nutshell gathered from pleadings and set out supra, plaintiff is complaining of infringement of suit design and colour scheme in it's label.

4. In this regard, there is no dispute before me that plaintiff's label which is subject matter of the main suit and this application regarding which there is a passing off complaint has not been filed as a plaint document. It has not been filed as part of the typed set of papers in the instant application also. Only the alleged offending labels of the defendants have been filed as part of the typed set of papers in the instant application.

5. Therefore this leaves us with the suit design.

6. As set out supra, suit design is design No. 161783, dated 11.01.1990 in class 3 under Designs Act, 1911. Photocopy of this design registration certificate has been placed before me. A perusal of this design registration certificate reveals that this design registration certificate has been issued by the Patent Office under the Designs Act, 1911, as mentioned supra.

7. The Design Registration Certificate for the suit design clearly states that the Copy Right in the design will subsist for five years from the date of registration and may under the terms of the Act and the rules be extended for two further periods of five years each. Therefore the design registration certificate placed before me is valid up to 11.01.1995. Further renewals have not been placed before me. To be noted, this design registration is valid upto 11.01.1995. Even if a further renewal had been made, the same should have been made on or before 11.01.1995. Second subsequent renewal, if any, also should have been made on or before 11.01.2000 and the second registration utmost would have been valid only till 2005.

8. The above position emerges clearly from the relevant provision under the Designs Act, 1911, i.e., Section 47. I deem it appropriate to extract Section 47 of the Designs Act, 1911, which reads as follows:

"Section 47. Copyright on registration-. (1) When a design is registered, the registered proprietor of the design shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, have copyright in the design during five years from the date of registration.

(2) If before the expiration of the said five years application for the extension of the period of copyright is made to the Controller in the prescribed manner, the Controller shall, on payment of the prescribed fee, extend the period of copyright for a second period of five years from the expiration of the original period of five years.

(3) If before the expiration of such second perio