S A SCHREDER Vs. TWINKLE LUMMINARIES PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff No. 1 is a company which has been incorporated in belgium and engaged in the business of photo metrically controlled luminaires and various lighting products, including street lighting fixtures and floodlights and claims to have worldwide operations. The suit has been 'nstituted through Mr S. K. Dutt, who is the Constituted Attorney of plaintiff no. 1. The plaintiff No. 2 is an Indian Company and has been authorized by he plaintiff No. 1 to use the technology of the plaintiff No. 1. The plaintiff to. 2 is the sole distributor of the plaintiff No. 1's products in India by virtue than agreement dated 5. 12. 2002.

(2.) IT is claimed by the plaintiff No. l that it is the registered proprietor of several designs in India under the provisions of The Designs Act, 1911 in respect of luminaires which include design registration nos. 170084,182340 and 182343. It is alleged that the said design registrations are valid and in force and they have been renewed from time to time. Originally, the plaintiff no. 1 was known as Financiere Des Applications De L'electricite S. A. and the design registrations were under that name. Subsequently, the name of the plaintiff No. 1 was changed to its present name i. e. , Schreder S. A. The design registration No 170084 pertains to the plaintiffs product known as rt3. The design registration Nos. 182340 and 182343 relate to the plaintiff's product known as Gema.

(3.) IT is alleged by the plaintiffs that sometime in September, 2004, the plaintiff No. 2 came to learn of the sale of identical luminaires by the defendant and corresponding to the plaintiffs' design known as Gema. A photograph of the luminaires of the defendant installed at Baba Kharag singh Marg, New Delhi, was taken and the same has been filed along with the plaint. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the design of the defendant's said luminaires is an imitation the plaintiffs' designs known as gema which relate to design registration Nos. 182340 and 182343. The plaintiffs issued a cease and desist notice dated 9. 9. 2004 through their advocates to the defendant. The defendant in their reply dated 13. 9. 2004 opposed the contentions of the plaintiffs and refused to cease and desist. Around the same time, the plaintiffs came to learn that the defendant is also selling and offering for sale luminaires corresponding to the RT3 design which related to design registration No. 170084. In these circumstances, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs, inter alia, for the following reliefs:-