2004 (2) TMI 356 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Infringement of design
2. Infringement of copyright in artistic work
3. Passing off
4. Validity of design registration
5. Applicability of the Designs Act, 2000 or the Designs Act, 1911
6. Prima facie case for interim relief

Detailed Analysis:

1. Infringement of Design:
The plaintiff sought a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from infringing the design of KARATACHI glass registered under No. 183322. The plaintiff argued that the design was registered in their name and any use by the defendant constituted infringement. However, the defendant contested the originality and proprietorship of the design, claiming it was in public knowledge for over thirty-five years and used internationally.

2. Infringement of Copyright in Artistic Work:
The plaintiff claimed that the KARATACHI glass design involved a three-dimensional reproduction of a two-dimensional artistic work, thereby attributing the artistic work to the plaintiff. The defendant argued that the design was not original and was widely available internationally, thus challenging the plaintiff's claim of copyright infringement.

3. Passing Off:
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was passing off their design glasses by manufacturing and selling glass with similar surface patterns and ornamentation. The court found no substantial evidence to support the claim of passing off, noting that the allegation was speculative and based on apprehension rather than actual infringement.

4. Validity of Design Registration:
The defendant challenged the validity of the design registration, arguing that the plaintiff falsely claimed the design as new and original. The court noted that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence supporting their proprietorship and originality of the design. The defendant provided evidence that the design was available in the international market long before the plaintiff's registration, thus questioning the validity of the registration.

5. Applicability of the Designs Act, 2000 or the Designs Act, 1911:
The plaintiff argued that their case should be governed by the Designs Act, 1911, under which the design was registered, claiming vested rights under the old Act. The defendant contended that the case should be governed by the Designs Act, 2000, which came into force after the repeal of the Designs Act, 1911. The court held that the Designs Act, 2000, applied to the present suit, as the suit was filed after the new Act came into force, and the right to institute legal proceedings accrued after the repeal of the old Act.

6. Prima Facie Case for Interim Relief:
The plaintiff sought interim reliefs in aid of the final reliefs, but the court found that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case for such relief. The court noted that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claims of proprietorship and originality of the design. Additionally, the court found no substantial basis for the claim of passing off.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for interim relief and dismissed the application. The court held that the Designs Act, 2000, governed the present suit, and the plaintiff did not provide adequate evidence to support their claims of design infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off. The costs of the application were to be the costs in the cause.