TARUN SETHI Vs. VIKAS BUDHIRAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff No. 3, which is a partnership firm of plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2, is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of hardware, such as door closers, spring hinges, etc. One of the products of the plaintiffs is a door spring which it is selling under the trademark 'YEN'. The design of the aforesaid door spring is registered vide design registration No. 202794 dated 05.01.2006 which continues to subsist. The said design, according to the plaintiffs, consists of a unique capsule shape of the door spring and a thin and light handle which is made of iron and the arrangement of the two. The original, novel and essential feature of the said design is stated to be the shape and configuration of the door spring which is alleged to be distinctive and unique to the plaintiffs? door spring under the mark 'YEN'. Defendant No. 3 Ritz Metal Works is also engaged in manufacture and sale of door closer. The case of the plaintiffs is that the door closer being manufactured and sold by the defendants is identical to their door closer design which is registered since 05.01.2006 and, therefore, they are infringing plaintiffs? right in the aforesaid registered design. The following are comparative chart has been given in the plaint to illustrate the identical features of the two products:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_3411_ILRDLH22_2012_1.html</FRM>

(2.) In their written statement, the defendants have taken a preliminary objection that there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiffs since they are not proprietors of design, shape, configuration and pattern of capsule door closer/door spring registered at serial No. 202794 dated 05.01.2006. It has been further alleged that while obtaining registration of the aforesaid design, the plaintiffs were fully aware that capsule door closer/door spring with immaterial variations were available in the market much prior to the date of the application by them and the plaintiffs themselves had advertised capsule door/door spring in a magazine in September-October, 1999. It is further stated that on 18.04.2002, the plaintiffs had obtained design registration in respect of door spring vide registration No. 188784 which was also of capsule shape and the design registered at serial No. 202794 on 05.01.2006 is merely a trade variation and is not altogether different from the design registered at serial No. 188784. It is further alleged that defendants are manufacturing and marketing capsule door closers/door springs since in the year 2000 and they had also advertised their products August, 2003 onwards.

(3.) The following issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties:-