VEEPLAST HOUSEWARE PRIVATE LTD Vs. BONJOUR INTERNATIONAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff is engaged in the manufacturing and trading of various plastic products, including water jugs. The products of the Plaintiff are being sold under the name "Nayasa" and the Plaintiff claims PAN India presence in its field. The Plaintiff-company has three manufacturing plants and employees more than 400 workers. In the year 2004, the Plaintiff-company conceptualized and created a novel design to be used for water jugs. The design was registered vide Design No. 194990 in Class 07-01 and the registration is stated to be valid till 23rd July, 2014. In the first week of May 2001, the Plaintiff came to know about use of a design by the Defendant on their water jugs being sold under the name Bonjour Maharaja. The case of the Plaintiff company is that the design adopted by the Defendant for its jug is identical to the registered design of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has accordingly sought an injunction, restraining the Defendants from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale and distributing any water jug bearing a design which amounts to infringement of the registered design of the Plaintiff-company. The Plaintiff has also sought damages and delivery of infringing material. IA No. 7916 of 2011 has been filed by the Plaintiff, seeking ad interim injunction against the use of the design adopted by the Defendant for selling its water jug.

(2.) The suit has been contested by Defendant No. 1 which claims to be manufacturing various products, including water jugs and selling them under its mark Bonjour. It is claimed that the Plaintiff has no right to seek design registration in respect of water jug in entirety and the design of the Defendant is neither new nor original. It is also alleged that the bucket of the Defendant also has similar fold as is the fold of the water jug of the Plaintiff. As regards legs of the water jugs, it is alleged that these legs are identical to the legs on the vacuum flask of Defendant No. 1 which is holding a registered design to be applied by it in respect of that vacuum flask. It is also pointed out that the cap being used by the Plaintiff on the water jug is different from the cap shown on its registered design. It is further stated that cap being used by the Defendant on its water jugs is altogether different.

(3.) A perusal of the Certificate of Registration issued by Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks on 10th June, 2004 would show that the Plaintiff-company has been granted registration of design in respect of a water jug. The Certificate would show that novelty in the design is imputed to the shape and configuration of the water jug as illustrated in the Registration Certificate.