PRANDA JEWELRY PVT LTD Vs. AARYA 24 KT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Notice of Motion is taken out in a copyright infringement and passing off suit. The case of the Plaintiffs may be shortly stated as follows.

(2.) Plaintiff No.1 is in the business of branded jewellery. Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3, respectively, hold 49 % and 51 % equity in Plaintiff No.1. Plaintiff No.1 designs, markets and sells inter alia gold sheet articles of deities and religious symbols under the brand name 'Prima Art'. Plaintiff No.1 creates the drawings for each of these articles on computers using specialized softwares through qualified graphic designers in its employment. Based on these drawings, the articles are manufactured by Plaintiff No.3 in Thailand, and imported from Thailand and sold in India by Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2. The product drawings are claimed to be original artistic work within the meaning of the Copyright Act, 1957, and of which the Plaintiffs are owners. The Plaintiffs have produced these drawings along with the plaint. The Plaintiffs claim to be entitled to reproduce this original artistic work in any material form including three dimensional depiction in any material. It is the Plaintiffs' case that in or about August 2010, the Plaintiffs learnt about infringement of the Plaintiffs' copyright in 22 product drawings by the Defendants. Defendant No.1, a partnership firm of which Defendant Nos.2 to 7 are partners, has been producing identical gold sheet articles of deities and religious symbols with the use of these designs. The Plaintiffs have shown brochures of the articles manufactured by the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 in support of this claim of infringement. It is the Plaintiffs' case that one Deepak Pereira, who was the Plaintiff's Manager, Head Sales, is now the CEO of Defendant No.1 and around August 2010 the Defendants changed the original designs of their articles and started copying the Plaintiffs' artistic works.

(3.) If one has regard to their respective brochures and also the respective articles produced by the Plaintiffs and Defendants, it is quite clear that the Defendants' articles are a clear imitation of the Plaintiffs' articles. The main contest between the parties is, however, on whether or not the Plaintiffs can claim any copyright in the matter. The Defendants submit that the articles, in which the Plaintiffs seek to illegally claim a monopoly, are being manufactured and sold both in India and worldwide by various parties; these articles are manufactured by others in the same forms of expression and depiction; these figures and signs are well known and are generic. It is claimed that there is no assignment of copyright in these artistic works from their authors to the Plaintiffs. It is submitted that there is a delay of over one year in taking out the present Notice of Motion, which disentitles the Plaintiffs to any interim relief. Lastly, it is submitted there is no case of passing off of the Defendants' goods as those of the Plaintiffs.