TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff's claim for protection of the registered design was governed by the Designs Act, 2000 and whether the defendant could raise the statutory grounds of invalidity in the suit; (ii) Whether the plaintiff made out a prima facie case for interim injunction on the basis of proprietorship, validity of registration, and passing off.
Issue (i): Whether the plaintiff's claim for protection of the registered design was governed by the Designs Act, 2000 and whether the defendant could raise the statutory grounds of invalidity in the suit.
Analysis: The registration obtained under the repealed Designs Act, 1911 was held to continue only to the extent saved by the repealing provisions of the Designs Act, 2000. The Court held that the suit was governed by the new statute because the right to sue arose after the new Act came into force, and the registration was to have effect as if granted under the corresponding provisions of the Designs Act, 2000. The Court further held that the defendant was entitled to invoke the statutory defences available under the new regime, and that the saving provisions in the General Clauses Act, 1897 did not preserve an absolute right in the plaintiff to exclude such defences.
Conclusion: The suit was governed by the Designs Act, 2000, and the defendant could raise the available statutory defences.
Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff made out a prima facie case for interim injunction on the basis of proprietorship, validity of registration, and passing off.
Analysis: The Court found that the plaintiff failed to produce material beyond the certificate of registration to show that it was the proprietor of a new or original design at the relevant time. On the material before the Court, the design appeared to have surfaced in the international market much earlier, and the plaintiff had not established a prima facie entitlement to copyright protection in the design. The Court also found no factual basis for passing off, since the claim was speculative and the pleaded foundation was apprehended infringement rather than proved infringement.
Conclusion: The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for interim relief.
Final Conclusion: The application for interlocutory relief was rejected because the plaintiff could not establish a sustainable right to interim protection under the governing statutory regime.
Ratio Decidendi: In a design infringement action arising after the commencement of the Designs Act, 2000, the new Act governs the enforcement right and the defendant may raise the statutory defences available under that Act; interim injunction will not issue unless the plaintiff independently establishes a prima facie entitlement to the design right asserted.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
