BALDEV SINGH Vs. SHRIRAM FOOTWEAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of the application filed by the plaintiff under order 39 rule 1 and 2 of the CPC registered as IA 2461/96 praying for a temporary injunction against the defendants, their servants and agents from manufacturing, marketing, selling or advertising or offering for sale of shoes bearing the design identical or having fraudulent and obvious imitation to the design of shoe of the plaintiff popularly known as Article No.887, as also the application filed by the defendant No.1 under order 39 rule 4 and registered as IA 313/97 praying for vacation of the interim injunction granted by this Court on 20.9.1996 against the defendant No.1.

(2.) The plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and selling of shoes and shoe soles known as Article No.887, which, according to the plaintiff, has distinctive shape, design, configuration and surface pattern propounded and originated by the plaintiff. The said design of the plaintiff is also stated to be registered with novelty of the front view, bottom view and side view. It is stated that the plaintiff is using the aforesaid design being Article No.887 continuously since 7.6.1995 and that the plaintiff has acquired a wide sale of the said design in respect of the shoe. According to the plaintiff, the design is new, original and novel and that the defendants have started manufacturing and selling shoe bearing similar shape, features, configuration and surface pattern having a fraudulent or obvious imitation to the plaintiff's aforementioned design of shoe w.e.f. 12.1.1996. It is stated that the plaintiff came to know about the piracy of design being committed by the defendants on 12.2.1996 and filed the present suit praying for relief of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants restraining the defendants from pirating and passing off under the plaintiff's design of shoe known as Article No.887 or having fraudulent imitation thereof.

(3.) Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC on which this Court passed order on 20.9.1996 restraining the defendants from manufacturing, marketing, selling, advertising or offering for sale of shoes bearing the design identical or having fraudulent and obvious imitation to the design of the shoe of the plaintiff popularly known as Article No.887 until further orders.