Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

vii) The plaintiff has earned substantial goodwill and reputation inter alia in the design of the said helmet as a result of its efforts towards the creation of the said design. Due to such efforts of the plaintiff, the said design has acquired a secondary meaning in the eyes of the public as denoting the goods of the plaintiff and no one else.

viii) In November, 2013, the plaintiff learnt about the fraudulent imitation of its registered design under No.241153 by the defendants who were manufacturing and selling helmets under the mark 'Format' in the same design as that of the plaintiffs wherein the defendants had copied the essential features of the plaintiff's registered design applied to helmets.

ix) The plaintiff's representative visited a shop and purchased the defendants infringing product without a cash memo. On enquiry, the plaintiffs came to know that the defendants have recently launched impugned helmets bearing the said design in the month of November, 2013.

xi) From comparison of the plaintiff's and the defendants' helmets there is no difference between any essential features of the plaintiff's registered design and that of the defendants impugned product design. Therefore it is evident that the impugned product of the defendant under the mark 'Format' constitutes an infringement of the prior statutory rights that vest in the plaintiff by virtue of registered design No.241153. 

       RICON                           RICON





        ROOF                             ROOF




       RISCH                            BROMBO

(iv) It is also alleged that there is no similarity between the plaintiff's helmet registered under the registration No.241153 and helmets manufactured by the defendants sold under the mark FORMAT. The pictures of both the designs are given below for ready reference:

FRONT VIEW Plaintiff's Product Defendant's product SIDE VIEW Comparison of the product of the Defendants and the Plaintiff.

(c) of the Act. The documents filed by the defendants prove that the alleged design registration was published in tangible form and disclosed in India as well as aboard within the meaning of Section 4(b) of the Act.

5. It is argued that from a mere comparison of the plaintiff's helmets bearing the said design and the defendant's helmets sold under the mark FORMAT, it is obvious that the two are identical and that there is no difference between any of the essential features of the plaintiff's registered design and that of the defendants impugned product design. Therefore it is evident that the impugned product of the defendants under the mark 'Format' constitutes an infringement of the prior statutory rights that vest in the Plaintiff by virtue of registered design No.241153 which is to be judged solely by the eye.