Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Firm inner coloured bristles remove plaque & clean teeth throughly, while soft white ones on the outside gently massage your gums.

3. And of course, the rubberised long, flat and easy grip handle allows you complete brushing control.

3. The rubberised long, flat and easy grip handle allows you complete brushing control.

7. It is submitted that the CELLO FLEXY toothbrush is manufactured in plastic material by a process of injection moulding in precision moulds whose cavities have i been made by engraving by the process of spark erosion upon steel blank cavities corresponding to the shape of the CELLO FLEXY toothbrush. It is submitted that the said moulds were manufactured by the defendants or by a third party under the control and authority of the defendants and may be lying in the premises of defendant No. 1 within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is submitted that having regard to the near identity in shape, size and dimensions of two toothbrushes, it can be inferred that the defendants' toothbrush was intentionally copied directly or indirectly from the DR. BEST or FLEX 'N' DIRECT toothbrushes or from a toothbrush which was itself a copy of the aforesaid two toothbrushes. It is submitted that the cavities within the mould used to manufacture the defendants toothbrush handles owe their shape and appearance of the pilot mould drawings and pilot moulds in issue in these proceedings as works attracting artistic copyright. It is submitted that such cavities were made by or on behalf of defendants 1 to 3 by the process of spark erosion by the process of reverse engineering via a specimen of plaintiff No. 1's DR. BEST and/or plaintiff No. 3's FLEX 'N' DIRECT toothbrushes without the license or consent of the plaintiffs or anyone of them. It is submitted that the moulds used by defendants 1 to 3 to manufacture CELLO FLEXY toothbrush were reproductions, alternatively substantial reproductions of the copyright works of plaintiffs 1 and/or 3 and these reproductions have been made by the defendants in pursuance to a common design without the license or consent of the plaintiffs and are infringements of the copyright of the plaintiff. It is submitted that the defendants are also using the mark FLEXY as the trade mark which was deceptively similar to the plaintiffs mark FLEX to which the plaintiff was the prior user. It is submitted that by the unlawful conduct of the defendants in allegedly imitating the plaintiffs copyright, the defendants were passing off their goods as those of the plaintiffs thus causing irreparable loss, damage and injury to the plaintiffs design, goodwill and reputation. Plaintiffs, therefore, have sought a decree for injunction as aforesaid.

22. In the present case as well, according to the plaintiffs own admission, AQUAFRESH FLEX was put on general sale in July, 1997. The defendants had placed an order for making of their moulds for manufacturing toothbrushes in question with a company in Taiwan vide its letter dated 14th April, 1997 and the moulds were received on 26th March, 1998. It is thus clear that even before the plaintiffs had marketed their products in India for sale to general public, an order for making of the mould for manufacturing of toothbrushes of similar type had already been placed by the defendants with a company in Taiwan. Prima facie, therefore, it does not appear to be correct that the moulds from which the defendants are manufacturing toothbrushes were made with reverse engineering from the brushes of the plaintiffs, as alleged in the plaint. After importing machinery from Germany, the defendants are manufacturing toothbrushes since July, 1998. Therefore, on the basis of the material on record, I am prima facie of the opinion that the plaintiffs have not placed sufficient material on record to prove that the defendants have copied their moulds from the moulds of the plaintiffs. At this stage, I am not considering the argument as to whether or not the plaintiffs have a copyright in the moulds from which the toothbrushes are manufactured. Similar toothbrushes being manufactured by the Hindustan Lever Limited and Kewal Raj & Company are already available in plenty in the market and I, therefore, do not see any reason as to why the defendants should be injuncted from manufacturing the toothbrushes under their name CELLO FLEXY. During the hearing, large number of judgments have been cited by the parties on the question as to whether or not there can be a copyright in the moulds from which the toothbrushes are manufactured, however, for the view I have taken, I have not considered it necessary to refer to the judgments cited by learned counsel for the parties.