Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The suit urges that the plaintiffs obtained registrations from the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks under the Designs Act and Rules, particulars of which were noticed in a detailed chart in the impugned judgment of the learned single judge. This is an undisputed fact. The suit alleged that the defendants copied the plaintiff's design for their products i.e. food grade plastic storage containers and infringed the plaintiff's designs in these products. The defendants‟ infringing products‟ designs are identical to the designs of the plaintiffs‟ products. Such infringement entitles the plaintiffs to seek restraint of the defendants from manufacturing and marketing these products. These actions of the defendants amount to: (a) design infringement under Section 20 of the Designs Act; (b) copyright infringement under Section 55 of the Copyright Act; (c) defendants are passing off their goods as that of the plaintiffs by copying trade address and trade name etc. which is confusing and similar to that of the plaintiffs goods. Therefore passing off action in injunction is also maintainable; (d) The defendants have copied the designs by adopting reverse engineering methodology; (e) the impugned act of the defendants also amounts to unfair competition and unfair trade practices which also entitles the plaintiffs to claim injunction against the defendants. The FAO (OS) 326/2007 Page 3 plaintiffs described 12infringing articles of the defendants; description of these articles is set out in Para 6 of the impugned judgment.