AASHIANA ROLLING MILLS LTD Vs. KAMDHENU LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the defendant (hereafter referred to as "Aashiana"), questioning the temporary ad-interim injunction issued by the learned Single Judge on 03.11.2017, in a suit by the plaintiff/respondent (hereafter "Kamdhenu"). Kamdhenu alleged that Aashiana had infringed its registered design in the sale of the latter's FRIENDS 500 HD steel bars. Aashiana contended that Kamdhenu could not establish its registered design prima facie to be novel and exclusive from the record so as to justify the impugned ad interim temporary injunction.

(2.) Briefly, the case set up in the suit is that the plaintiff manufactures and markets steel bars and other allied goods under the name and trademark, Kamdhenu . It also claimed that to distinguish its TMT bars from the other bars in the market, it developed a unique design with new and original features of surface pattern, comprising of double ribs applied to 16 bars. This development took place in 201 Kamdhenu applied for registration under the Designs Act, 2000; its claim was accepted, and the registration was granted in Class 25-01 with effect from 14.01.2013, by certificate issued on 29.08.2014 by the Patents and Designs Controller General. Kamdhenu applied the design to its product, known as SS 10,000 TMT, which it claims is the best quality steel bar. This resulted in its "sole right to utilize a design in an artistic manner" and use it for its products or adoption of any identical or similar design.

(3.) The suit alleged that Kamdhenu became aware in the first week of June 2017 about the infringement by Aashiana, when it came across TMT bars and leaflets relating to the defendant's goods bearing the trademark 'Friends 500 HD' in the markets of South Delhi. The suit alleged that Aashiana applied and copied, adopted and imitated design identical to Kamdhenu's registered design in Class 25.01 and its registered trademark. It claimed that the surface pattern on the double ribs used and applied to Aashiana's TMT bars was identical or substantially similar to its design. These were an obvious imitation of the plaintiffs registered design and this use of the design with the intention of imitating and using the plaintiffs registered design was fraudulent and would amount to an infringement.