The main legal point established in the judgment is that to grant a temporary injunction, the plaintiff must demonstrate a strong prima facie case, irreparable loss, and a balance of convenience in its favor. Additionally, the court emphasized the importance of the distinctiveness of the design and the plaintiff's fair conduct.

This appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(r), Civil Procedure Code has been filed at the instance of plaintiff whose application for issuance of temporary injunction has been rejected by learned trial Court on 3-7-2012 in Civil Suit No. 2-A/2012.

2. In brief the suit of the plaintiff as borne out from the plaint is that the plaintiff is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (in short "Companies Act") having its registered office mentioned in para 1 of the plaint. The plaintiff is involved in the business of brewing, marketing and sale of beer, non-alcoholic beverages and mineral water. The plaintiff manufactures and sells the beer in the name and trademark "Haywards 5000" while name of defendant's Beer is "Black Fort". The plaintiff has registered the bottle of its beer under section 9(1) of the Designs Act, 2000 (in short "Designs Act") having Registration No. 223479 dated 19-6-2009 registered on 15-1-2000. The beer which defendant manufactures is filled and bottled in its own bottles and apart from it, the defendant also used to purchase the empty bottles from the junk market and after recycling it fills its own product "Black Fort" and sells in the market. Thus, the defendant also used to sale its own product (beer Black Fort) in the empty bottles of the plaintiff bottle whose design has been registered under the Designs Act for which defendant has no right and its action is contrary to the said Act. It is the further case of the plaintiff that defendant used to sell his beer in the empty bottle of plaintiff with a mala fide intention that because the plaintiff is having own reputation in the market and therefore customers may purchase the beer of defendant under the impression that it is the product (beer Haywards 5000) of plaintiff and thus the plaintiff has filed the suit with the aid of section 22 of Designs Act and section 134(1)(c), 135(1) and 135(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (in short "Trade Marks Act") for grant of decree of injunction against the defendant against design infringement, passing-off, misrepresentation, his act of unfair competition and also for damages.

3. An application for issuance of temporary injunction has also been filed by the plaintiff-appellant praying that till the suit is decided the defendant be restrained from selling its product beer Black Fort in the bottle of plaintiff whose design has been registered under the Designs Act.

4. The defendant-respondent filed written statement and has also filed reply against the plaintiff's application for issuance of temporary injunction and has pleaded that defendant is not using the plaintiff’s name and design and product to sell its product Black Fort beer. The defendant has its own registered trade mark under which its products are sold. Specific denial has been made that defendant has made any unauthorized use of trade mark/name of plaintiff. According to defendant as per practice prevailing in the beer trade, every beer sold in the market is not contained in a freshly manufactured bottle. Used bottles are collected from the open market for recycling and rebottling. According to defendant, the plaintiff and defendant are practitioner of the same system of bottling and sale of beer in recycled bottles. Denial has been made in the written statement that plaintiffs bottle has a unique visual appeal to beer consumers or the bottles are visually distinguishable from the bottles of other brands. The averments of plaintiff are also denied that consumers identify or associate any unique shape of a bottle to the beer manufactured by the plaintiff. According to the defendant the registration of plaintiff does not bear any distinguishing feather of plaintiff’s alleged design to make the plaintiff alleged bottle unique. It has also been pleaded in the written statement that plaintiffs claim of certain rights by operation of the Designs Act is subject to restrictions and conditions under the said Act and since the design of plaintiff bottle is