* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on : 21^st February, 2023 Judgment delivered on : 13th March, 2023 + CS(COMM) 602/2022 PANDROL LIMITED & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr.Rajshekhar Rao, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Archana Sahadeva, Ms.Anjuri Saxena and Mr.Yashraj Samant, Advocates.

versus PATIL RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.

LTD. & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: Mr.Jayant Mehta, Mr.Donthi Reddy, Dr. Venkat Reddy, Sr.Advocates with Mr.Gagan Gupta, Advocate.12r4 CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

JUDGMENT

I.A. 14099/2022 (O-XXXIX R-1 & 2 of the CPC)

1. By way of the present judgment, I shall decide the application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for grant of interim injunction.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUIT

2. Summons in the suit was issued on 2^nd September, 2022, when an ad interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs, restraining the defendants from infringing the copyrighted works and the registered Signature Not Verified trademark ‘PANDROL’ of the plaintiffs as well as passing off their products as those of the plaintiffs under the ‘PANDROL’ mark. The relevant portion of the injunction order is set out as under:

“32. Accordingly, Defendants, their directors, executives, partners, proprietors, principal officers, assignees, family members and anyone acting for and on their behalf are restrained from:

a. directly or indirectly copying, reproducing, storing, using, publishing, advertising Pandrol‟s Copyrighted Work, i.e. drawing numbers 13145, 13146, 14613, 14614, 5720, 8605, 8604, 12683, 12740, 2759, 12717, 12791, 10108, 21166, in any manner that may result in infringement of the Plaintiff‟s copyright subsisting in the said drawings;

b. using, applying, manufacturing and selling, offering for sale, advertising or promoting the unauthorized usage of the PANDROL trade mark, or any other mark which is either identical to or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff‟s registered trade mark „PANDROL‟ causing infringement of the registered trade mark and passing off in respect of any products whatsoever.”

3. A Local Commissioner was also appointed by the Court to visit the premises of the defendant no.1 in Hyderabad, to, inter alia, take into custody any information/data/drawings belonging to the plaintiffs and in the possession of the defendants. Report dated 15^th September, 2022 of the Local Commissioner is on record.

4. Thereafter, pleadings in the suit and the present application have been completed. Submissions in the present application were heard on 21^st February, 2023 and judgment was reserved. Both sides have filed a brief note of their submissions.

Signature Not Verified CASE SET UP IN THE PLAINT

5. The case set up in the plaint is as under:

5.1. Plaintiff no.1 is the industry leader in rail fastenings and track elasticity solutions headquartered in the United Kingdom. The plaintiff no.2 is a joint venture between the plaintiff no.1 and Rahee Industries Ltd., a leading integrated railroad company.

5.2. The defendant no.1 is a company in the business of dealing in railway track engineering. Defendants no.2 to 5 are employees of the defendant no.1.

5.3. The mark ‘PANDROL’ of the plaintiffs was adopted by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff no.1 in 1964 and subsequently, also adopted as the trade/corporate name of the plaintiff no.1. The plaintiff no.1 holds registrations dating as far back as 1964 for its trademark ‘PANDROL’ in various classes, details of which are provided in paragraph 40 of the plaint. The plaintiff no.1 is the registered proprietor of the ‘PANDROL’ trademark in India.

5.4. The plaintiffs have designed, developed and created detailed drawings for their ‘Pandrol Double Resilient Baseplate Assembly System’ [hereinafter ‘DBRAS’], which is a railway track fastening system used in metro rails.

5.5. The Ministry of Railways, vide notification dated 21^st May, 2010 had notified the „Performance Criteria of Fastening Systems fo