Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 59425
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J
G. Raghu Babu trading as Chaithanya Tractors – Appellant
Versus
Murali Krishnan trading as M/s. Murali Krishna Tractors – Respondent
Appeal Suit No. 574 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S. Rajesh Ramanathan
For the Respondents: Mr. P. V. Muralidhar
The court ruled that merely having a design registration does not suffice for claiming infringement; substantial evidence is required to prove actual imitation or violation, along with legal recognition of the design's applicability.
Headnote:(A) Designs Act, 2000 - Sections 2, 9, 11, 22, and 38 - Appeal against the dismissal of a suit for design infringement - The appellant claims exclusive rights over a forklift vehicle design based on a registered design, but fails to prove infringement against the respondents. The court found that the appellant had not established a prima facie case for relief and regarded the design registration certificate as non-binding for legal action due to its disclaimers. (Paras 1, 10, 18, 35, and 39)
(B) Copyright and Design Protection - The court emphasized the necessity of providing substantial evidence to support claims of design infringement or passing off, rejecting claims based on mere registration without follow-up legal protections or permissions. (Paras 11, 18, and 39)
(C) Dismissal Standards in Design Disputes - Held, the plaintiff must succeed based on his own merits without relying solely on defendants' weaknesses. The court reinforced that a well-founded claim requires clear evidence of infringement, not just partial admissions by the defendants. (Paras 10, 20, and 39)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishment of suit and jurisdiction (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. defendants' written statement (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
This Appeal Suit had been filed to set aside the judgment dated 07.11.2023 passed in O.S.No.190 of 2022 by the learned Additional Sub Judge, Ponneri.
2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this Appeal, are as follows:-
2.1. The Appellant is primarily involved in the designing and manufacturing of various mechanical appliances and has created a creative portfolio, having designed a number of unique devices, which are currently being used in various relevant fields including agriculture, brick making and quarries. The articles to which the designs of the Appellant have been applied are also being used in several parts of the country. The Appellant has won several awards and accolades as an acknowledgment of the Appellant's contribution in having created various such appliances used across the country.
2.2. In the course of his business, the Appellant having altruistic intentions rooted in practicality came up with a creative design for a FORKLIFT VEHICLE by applying a novel industrial design to a conventional tractor. A conventional tractor is the most visible and useful vehicle that a farmer would wish to invest in. In a country like India where farming and agriculture is the leading occupation of the people, a tractor plays a vital role in the life of a farmer. It can deliver several advantages to the farmers and make the task of farming easier such as saving time and resources, providing multiple farming uses such as tilling, ploughing, planting, and harvesting, functioning as transport carriers, etc. As an efficient machine, it helps the farmer to comprehensively carry out the various works related to the farming.
2.3. The advantages of forklift in agriculture and farming are also several, because lifting and easily moving heavy parcels is a daily task on a farm. This includes lifting of hay bales, animal feed, fencing materials, equipment parts and seed. A farm forklift can be used on many different types of farming operations including grain, livestock, and produce. Without a farm forklift, farmers are tasked with lifting items like these by themselves, or using another piece of equipment that is not made to do this work.
2.4. Pursuant to the above, on the basis of his expertise in designing and manufacturing appliances with unique and aesthetic designs coupled with his understanding of the critical role played by tractors and the advantages of forklifts in the agricultural industry. In an endeavour to achieve the ends of creating a forklift vehicle from an ubiquitous tractor that is generally used by agriculturists, the Appellant created the design for a forklift vehicle from the chassis of a conventional tractor.
2.5. It is pertinent to note that the said design can be applied on a conventional tractor without compromising on the optimum utilization of the existing tractor specifications including ride comfort, visibility and performance and does not in any manner impede the vision of the rider and also ensures that the drive has an aesthetically pleasing vis-à-vis ride comfort of the said vehicle as compared to existing forklift modifications to a tractor that heavily encumbers the operator's vision range.
2.6. The design created by the Appellant is novel and innovative, which is not a subject of any prior inventive designs. The Appellant designed and developed the forklift vehicle based on a unique and innovative arrangement where the necessary components of a forklift have been creatively attached to a conventional tractor with various other external modifications. The design of the forklift vehicle allows the operator to use the vehicle to lift and transport heavy materials for longer distances and through rougher terrains. The forklift vehicle designed by the Appellant can be used by farmers and small industrialists for loading of any agricultural bags in the field to the trailer, ins
