Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. After setting out details of the number of tractors sold and the sales turnover, the plaintiff further states that the defendant's tractor model Standard 348 is identical to the plaintiff's MF 245 DI https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/09/2025 04:55:31 pm ) tractor. The plaintiff asserts and alleges that the defendant had copied the plaintiff's drawings for the tractor parts and components or has resorted to reverse engineering and has produced the three dimensional parts/components by that process. Therefore, it is contended that the defendant has infringed the plaintiff's copyright in the drawings and, consequently, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for in the suit. On the same basis, allegations of passing off are also made in the plaint.

13. By referring to the cross examination of PW2, particularly questions and answers 41 to 43 and 48 to 49, learned counsel submitted that PW2 stated that he had compared the dimensions of the essential parts of the plaintiff's tractor with the dimensions of the essential parts of the defendant's tractor, and that the dimensions match. As regards the standards prescribed by the Bureau of Indian https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/09/2025 04:55:31 pm ) Standards, learned counsel submitted that these standards are provided in the form of ranges. Within such range, he submitted that each tractor manufacturer chooses specific dimensions and measurements. In fact, he submits that the trade practice is to pick distinctive dimensions and measurements so as to ensure that only parts manufactured by the manufacturer are purchased in the secondary market. According to learned counsel, a mere perusal of the photographs showing the similarities in essential parts (Exs.P2 to P59) would reveal that the defendant's tractor parts/components were made by copying the plaintiff's drawings, including by reverse engineering.

Q42: As per your earlier deposition you were involved in the R&D Department of your company. Whether you have personally involved in any of the drawings of the any of the essential parts in any of the tractor models produced by your company?

A: Not in Standard 348, but in other models. Q43: I put it to you that as admitted by you in Standard 348 model you do not have any drawings for the essential part of the tractor as they are copied by reverse engineering the plaintiff's tractor model.

A: I deny it. We did not do the reverse engineering.

Q46: Do you agree with your research and development background that there are 3 major classification of tractor parts namely (1) off the shelf products like battery, tyre, etc. (2) nuts, bolts, sprockets, chains, belts, etc. (3) essential parts like gear box, carborator, clutch assembly, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/09/2025 04:55:31 pm ) brake assembly, etc.?