Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

22. We are not even required to go into the claim of the respondent that what is being sold by the appellant as a equivalent product is nothing but a process of reverse engineering in view of the fact that it was admitted before us during the hearing of the appeal by the learned counsel for the appellant that what was being marketed by the appellant was in fact copy of D2 range of the respondent. However, what was contended before us was that these minutes should be read as a license to copy. We are afraid that we are unable to read anything in the minutes which can entitle the appellant to copy the D2 range of the respondent. Thus the pleas of estoppel, acquiescence cannot be sustained. It further cannot be appreciated that if the appellant was only engaged in copying the product of the respondent, then why such a large amount would be spent on R & D. There seems to be inconsistencies in the plea of the appellant.