GARWARE WALL ROPES LTD Vs. ANANT KANOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants, original plaintiffs, M/s. Garware-Wall Ropes Limited, filed Regular Civil Suit No.2 of 2005 in the Court of the Principal District Judge, Surat, praying, inter alia, that a declaration be granted in favour of the plaintiffs that they are registered owners of the patent; defendant No.1, M/s.Techfab India, either through its servants, employees, agents, officer, etc., are not entitled to manufacture, sell, use and offer for sale the `gabion' made from synthetic ropes, and also prayed that the defendants are not entitled to do any act, which may infringe the plaintiffs' Patented SRG Invention under Patent No.195352. They have also prayed to the Court that the defendants be restrained by a permanent injunction from manufacturing, selling and/or offering the product known as `Gabion', as detailed in Annexure-B. The plaintiffs have also prayed for a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs as damages with a further prayer for rendition of accounts of profit earned by the defendants by copying the plaintiffs' patent and selling the same in the market. In the suit, an application under Exh.5 was made seeking temporary injunction against defendant No.1 that they be injuncted from manufacturing, selling and/or offering for sale the gabion and they be further restrained from infringing the plaintiffs' patent.

(2.) The learned trial Court, by its ex parte Order dated 18th October, 2005, restrained the defendants from manufacturing, selling and distributing prefabricated collapsible and flexible gabion made of ropes; the order was to remain in force till 27th October, 2005; a show cause notice was issued to the defendants asking them to show cause as to why the order be not confirmed till the final disposal of the suit. Being aggrieved by the ex parte order, the plaintiffs came to this Court by way of an Appeal From Order (Appeal No.350 of 2005); the appeal was finally disposed of by prescribing time bound schedule for final hearing of Exh.5 with a further clarification that till final disposal of the said application, the defendants would be allowed to manufacture and market, etc., if according to the defendants, the product manufactured by them is different than the product patented in favour of the plaintiffs, however, the defendants would be obliged to maintain the accounts of the sales.

(3.) The defendants, thereafter, submitted their written statement and the counter-claim. A rejoinder was also filed. The defendants, in the written statement, submitted that Patent No.195352 be revoked under Section-64 of the Patents Act, 1970 (?the Act? for short). The plaintiffs, in view of the counter-claim made by the defendants, made an application to the trial Court that in view of the provisions of law, the suit be transferred to the High Court under Section-104 of the Patents Act. The learned trial Court, vide its Order dated 28th October, 2005, transferred the suit and the counter-claim to this Court and extended the modified interim order. After receipt of the suit in this Court, it was renumbered as Civil Suit No.4 of 2005.