Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22484
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
D. K. SINGH, VENKATESH NAIK T, JJ
MRS. K. NIRMALA RANI PROPRIETRIX OF S.K. STEEL TECH – Appellant
Versus
M/S. ATTUR STEELS PVT LTD. – Respondent
Original Side Appeal No. 22 of 2015 | O.S. No. 4/2013
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. RAJENDRA M.S., SRI. VIVEK HOLLA
For the Respondents: SRI. YASHODHAR HEGDE, SRI. AJAY J NANDALIKE
Injunction is justified when a prima facie case exists along with balance of convenience and risk of irreparable harm.
Headnote:(A) The Designs Act, 2000 - Sections 22 - The present appeal challenges an injunction order against the appellant for alleged infringement of proprietary rights of the respondent in design registration No.213535 - The learned Single Judge found a prima facie case and balance of convenience in favor of the plaintiff-respondent, thus granting the injunction. (Paras 1, 2, 4)
(B) Injunction - For a temporary injunction, there must be a demonstration of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm. (Paras 2)
Facts of the case:
The respondent filed a suit claiming damages for infringement of its registered design and sought a permanent injunction against the appellant from using what they deemed a deceptively similar design. This led to an injunction order that the appellant is challenging.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the injunction order stating it was justified due to the confirmed registration of the design in favor of the respondent.
Issues: The court addressed whether the learned Single Judge erred in granting the injunction based on the design’s similarity and the respondent's established ownership.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the learned Single Judge correctly assessed the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential confusion among consumers, leading to the refusal to interfere with the injunction order.
Result: The appeal is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. injunction basis and initial case evaluation (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. response to application for rectification (Para 3) |
| 3. court's dismissal of appeal (Para 4) |
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the injunction order passed by the learned Single Judge under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in O.S.No.4/2013 dated 13.08.2015.
2. The respondent has filed the suit in O.S.No.8291/2013 before the 18th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru against the appellant herein towards damages caused due to alleged infringement of the proprietary rights held by the respondent - plaintiff under the certificate of Registration bearing No.213535 and for mandatory injunction to repay all the profits earned by usage of design and also for permanent injunction restraining the appellant - defendant from using such design. The said suit was transferred on application filed by the plaintiff under Section 22 of The Designs Act , 2000 before this Court on 14.11.2013 and this suit was re-numbered as O.S.No.4/2013. Vide the impugned temporary injunction order, the learned Single Judge, injuncted the appellant - defendant holding that the design used by the defendant - appellant was deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff - respondent and that would create confusion in the minds of the customer. Finding a prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff - respondent, the injunction order was granted restraining the appellant - defendant from using the design of the plaintiff - respondent.
3. The appellant had filed application for rectification of the registration granted in favour of the plaintiff-respondent before the Controller of Designs. However the Controller of Designs vide order dated 13.08.2015 had rejected the application for rectification filed by the appellant - defendant and confirmed the design in favour of the plaintiff - respondent. The said order passed by the Controller of Designs has not been challenged by the appellant -
defendant.
4. Beyond all the above said designs, registration of the designs for which the suit was filed for its infringement stood confirmed in favour of the respondent - plaintiff. We, therefore do not find the order impugned suffers from any illegality which requires an interference by this Court in the present appeal. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal leaving it open to the parties to lead evidence before the learned Single Judge in support of their case. All contentions of the parties are kept open.
