N. Sathish Kumar, J.

The captioned applications have been filed by the original defendants 1, 3 to 6 for striking out the pleadings in the plaint in paragraphs 9 to 13, 35 to 38 and 41 to 43 and consequent prayers a, b, d and e in C.S. No.195 of 2013.

2. The instant suit has been filed by the original plaintiff alleging that the original 1st defendant is infringing the copyright in the artistic work found in the products manufactured by them. According to the applicants/original defendants 1, 3 to 6, the relief’s claimed by the original plaintiff under the copyright Act are statutorily barred under Section 15 (2) of the Copyright Act, 1957. It is stated that the original plaintiff's claim copyright in all the averred materials are subject matter of registration under the Designs Act, 2000. In the absence of registration under the Designs Act, 2000, the statutory protection available to a registered design is no longer available to the original plaintiff. It is also stated that the original plaintiff has not filed any documentary evidence to establish that it has applied for copyrighting the drawings. Hence, the original defendants 1, 3 to 6 have filed the captioned application.

3. It is the case of the original plaintiff that the original defendants 1, 3 to 6 have already filed application being Application No.1827 of 2013 to reject the plaint on the same grounds, as have been raised in these applications, but the same was dismissed, by this Court, vide order dated 03.4.2014. As against the same, appeal, being OSA.No. 113 of 2014, was filed, which was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 22.01.2015, inter alia, confirming the interim arrangement requiring the defendants to file quarterly returns to continue as the final arrangement. However, the original defendants have deliberately failed to comply with the initial order passed in O.A.Nos.190 and 191 of 2013 though the same was confirmed in the aforementioned O.S.A. Till date, they have failed to file the returns in the suit as per the order. It is stated that the original defendants are trying to achieve by indirect means what they could not achieve by direct means. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the application.

4. The learned counsel for the original defendants 1, 3 to 6 submitted that the suit itself is not maintainable in view of Section 15 of the Copyright Act. According to the original defendants, any Artistic work by industrial application transforms into a commercially marketable article, its designs falls within the domain of the Designs Act and the protection to the design founded upon the artistic work is limited by Section 15 of the Copyright Act, and the provisions of the Designs Act, 2000. The original plaintiff's alleged copyright in all materials, as claimed has been reproduced more than 50 times even before the date of filing the suit. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the suit is not maintainable. Therefore, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the original defendants that necessary pleadings made in the plaint in this regard have to be struck off. If the pleadings with regard to the Copyright have been struck off, then the Court has no jurisdiction to decide the suit in view of the fact that the leave has not been obtained to institute the said suit, since the defendants are residing outside the jurisdiction Hence, submitted that the suit is nothing but abuse of process of law.

5. The learned counsel for the original defendants 1, 3 to 6, by placing reliance on the judgments reported in MIPR 2009 (2) 229 (Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar and co., and another); 2012 (129) DRJ 105 (Kiran Shoes Manufacturers v. Registrar of Copyrights and Another); 2013 (6) CTC 247 (Urooj Ahmed, Lords Enterprises (India) v. Preethi Kitchen Appliances Private Limited); AIR 1998 SC 1297 (K.K.Modi v. K.N.Modi and Others); 1986 (1) Scales 573 (Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi); and 2007 (99) DRJ 475 (Mrs. Pamela Kumar v. Mr. Chandrashekhar a