The court held that the defendants had infringed the copyright of the plaintiffs in their drawings for the manufacture of electronic relays and timers.

Headnote:
COPYRIGHT - INFRINGEMENT - INJUNCTION - PRIMA FACIE CASE - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - SIMILARITY OF PRODUCTS - USE OF DRAWINGS - MANUFACTURING WITHOUT REFERENCE TO DRAWINGS - INFERENCE OF ACTING FOR ANOTHER - TEST REPORTS NOT CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF MANUFACTURING - INJUNCTION GRANTED.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs, manufacturers of electronic relays and timers, filed a suit against the defendants, alleging infringement of copyright in their drawings for the manufacture of electronic relays and timers. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were using the drawings of the plaintiffs or had their own resources and the necessary technical know-how to have drawings for the manufacture of relays. The defendants denied the allegations and claimed that they had their own drawings and that there were several types of relays and timers sold in the market under different names.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for injunction. The court noted that the defendants had not produced any evidence to show that they had their own drawings or that they had the necessary technical know-how to have drawings for the manufacture of relays. The court also noted that the defendants had not produced any accounts or daily records maintained for the manufacture of relays and timers, which the court considered to be the best possible evidence from the defendants.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendants had infringed the copyright of the plaintiffs in their drawings for the manufacture of electronic relays and timers. 2. Whether the defendants had used the drawings of the plaintiffs or had their own resources and the necessary technical know-how to have drawings for the manufacture of relays. 3. Whether the defendants were acting for Mr. Sanjay Chanana, who had been restrained by an earlier order of injunction from manufacturing relays.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendants had infringed the copyright of the plaintiffs in their drawings for the manufacture of electronic relays and timers. The court found that the defendants had not produced any evidence to show that they had their own drawings or that they had the necessary technical know-how to have drawings for the manufacture of relays. The court also found that the defendants had not produced any accounts or daily records maintained for the manufacture of relays and timers, which the court considered to be the best possible evidence from the defendants. The court also found that the defendants were acting for Mr. Sanjay Chanana, who had been restrained by an earlier order of injunction from manufacturing relays.
Final Decision: The court granted an injunction restraining the defendants from making or selling the infringing goods till the disposal of the suit.

K. Ramamoorthy

( 1 ) THE plaintiffs have filed the this application for injunction. The point involved in the case lies in a very narrow compass. The plaintiffs filed the Suit No. 2852-94 against M/s. Classic Electronics and Mr. Sanjay Chanana.

( 2 ). The main case of the plaintiffs against the defendants in the present suit is that the defendants 1 and 2 are infringing the copyright of the plaintiffs in the drawing for the manufacture of electronic relays and timers through a firm by the name of Classic Electronics and the defendants 1 and 2 are only allies of the Classic Electronics and Mr. Sanjay Chanana. According to the plaintiffs, Mr. Sanjay Chanana of Classic Electronics in order to get over the order of injunction, is doing business through defendants I and2.

( 3 ). Defendants 1 and 2 had never been, according to the plaintiffs, in the business of manufacture of electronic relays and timers. According to the plaintiffs, the third defendant who was purchasing goods from the plaintiffs is now purchasing the same relays from Mr. Sanjay Chanana using the name of the first defendant. The plaintiffs have filed the following documents:

1. Annexure A - photographs of relays and timers showing the product design and the electrical/electronic circuits and EPOXY sealing used by the plaintiffs, M/s. Classic Electronics and the defendant No. 1. 2. Annexure B - Copy of the Certificate of Registration issued by the Directorate of Industries, Delhi Administration to the first plaintiff. 3. Annexure C - Copy of letter dated 16. 8. 80 from DESU certifying supplies made to it by plaintiff between 1976 to 1980. 4. Annexure D - Copy of the advertisement made in the Trademarks Journal dated 16. 10. 96 for the trademark PIC for electric and electronic relays. 5. Annexure E - Copy of the Certificate of Incorporation dated 31. 3. 1992 of the first plaintiff Company. 6. Annexure F - Copies of the letters dated 20. 5. 94 and 23-5-94 written by customers from Bangalore to Mr. Sanjay Chanana. 7. Annexure G - Copy of the letter dated 15. 11. 1994 from a customer to the plaintiffs. 8. Annexure H - Copy of the interim ex-parte order dated 19. 12. 1994 passed in IA. 11853/94 in S. 2852/94. 9. Annexure I - Copies of the invoices issued by the plaintiff to M/s. Sharma Electricals. 10. Annexure J - Copies of the invoices issued by Classic Electronics to Sharma Electricals. 11. Annexure K - Copy of extract from the record slip of cheques showing issuance of cheques by M/s. Classic Electronics in favour of M/s. Aditya Enterprises, the first defendant in the present suit. This is to show that even during the pendency of the earlier suit the Classic Electronics had been doing business through the first defendant. 12. Annexure L - Copy of the notice on behalf of the plaintiff dated 16. 10. 1995 to the first defendant Company.

( 4 ). The first defendant on the 21st of February, 1997 filed a typed set containing affidavit by the second defendant. Test Report of dated 31. 1. 1997 from the Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (North), NSI Laboratory, Department of Electronics, Government of India. On the 6th of January, 1997, defendants 1 and 2 filed a typed set containing the following documents:

1. Written statement filed by defendants 1 and 2. 2. Affidavit in support of the written statement. 3. Annexure D. 9 - Certificate of Incorporation dated 11. 12. 1981 by the Registrar of Companies, Delhi and Haryana. 4. Annexure D. IO - Test Report dated 5. 5. 1997 in continuation of the earlier report dated 31. 1. 97 issued by the Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (North), NSI Laboratory, Department of Electronics, Government of India. 5. Annexure D. ll - Technical specifications of relays. 6. Annexure D. 12 - Affidavit of Shri J. S. Shamby dated 6. 5. 1997.

( 5 ). On the 3rd of October, 1997, the plaintiffs submitted a typed set containing the following documents:

1. Copy of the certificate dated 14. 5. 1997 issued by M/s. Kanbro Sales Corporation certifying the sale o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(Del) 220

High Court Of DelhiPUNIT INDUSTRIAL CONTROLS PRIVATE LIMITED - AppellantVersusADITYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED - RespondentInterim Application 11909 of 1996Decided On : 03/19/1999

The court held that the defendants had infringed the copyright of the plaintiffs in their drawings for the manufacture of electronic relays and timers.

High Court Of Delhi
PUNIT INDUSTRIAL CONTROLS PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
ADITYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED - Respondent
Interim Application 11909 of 1996
Decided On : 03/19/1999