MONIKA CHAWLA Vs. NATIONAL TRADING COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of three interim application Nos. 10857/91, 2125/92, 3550/92. In brief, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff Smt. Monika Chawla, as the sole proprietor of KIDDIE KRAFT, has filed a suit for permanent injunction for passing off and pirating the design of baby bouncer against National Trading Company, hereinafter called the defendant seeking a relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from passing off under the plaintiff's design of bay bouncer or any design or a design of any fraudulent imitation thereof in respect of the design of baby bouncer. A decree of mandatory injunction for delivery of all the aforesaid goods, finished or unfinished and other incriminating material including dies and moulds, in the possession or under the control of the defendant has also been claimed against the defendant. Rendition of account and damage has also been prayed for.

(2.) In the suit, an application for interim injunction was also moved being I.A.6965/91. Vide order dated 9.7.91 Anil Dev Singh, J. restrained the defendant from manufacturing, selling, advertising or offering for sale baby bouncers bearing the design propounded by the plaintiff. That interim order was confirmed by the Court on 16.8.1991.

(3.) Aggrieved, the defendant-applicant has filed these three applications for vacation of the interim order. All these application have been contested by the plaintiff and replies have been filed by the plaintiff pleading, inter-alia, that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of furniture meant for infants and children. The plaintiff during the course of her business activities propounded in the year 1987 a new and original design of baby bouncer. The features and the get up of the plaintiff's goods i.e. baby bouncer has already become a distinctive indicium in relation to the said goods. That in order to get statutory protection to the new, original and novel design of baby bouncer, the plaintiff applied for registration in the Patent Office at Calcutta on 1.5.91. The registration of the design is legal and regular and still subsisting in law. By virtue of the registration, the plaintiff has right to manufacture and sell baby bouncer having the shape and configuration and distinctive features involved in the said design of baby bouncer of the plaintiff and as such the plaintiff is claiming herself to be proprietor of the design of the baby bouncer. She has also mentioned that the sale of her baby bouncers has been increasing year after year.