PHOTOQUIP INDIA LTD Vs. DELHI PHOTO STORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this copyright infringement action, the Plaintiff seeks by this Notice of Motion an order restraining the Defendants from infringing the Plaintiff's copyright in the artistic works at Exhibits "A" and "B" to the plaint. These are technical drawings, and I will return to them in detail shortly. The Plaintiff also claims copyright in the drawings of the moulds or cast of the Plaintiff's product.

(2.) The products in question are flash lights used in photography. I would imagine that these are not the kind of things that a novice or a casual user might have, but are used in commercial and studio photography by professionals and perhaps by serious enthusiasts. The Defendants' products, claimed by the Plaintiff to be the infringing items, are, to my mind, indistinguishable from the Plaintiff's. The Defendants have produced no drawings of their own. Their defence, as I understand it, is that there is no subsisting copyright in the Plaintiff's drawings; that the drawings have no artistic value and therefore there can be no copyright in them; the Plaintiff's drawings cannot be used to make the moulds in which, too, the Plaintiff claims copyright; that it is in fact the Plaintiff who has pirated from the Defendants; and that there is so much uncertainty about whether any copyright could vest in the Plaintiff or, on the Plaintiff's showing, can only vest in its Swiss principals, that no question arises of granting the Plaintiff any sort of injunction.

(3.) I have heard Dr. Tulzapurkar, learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff, and Mr. Neeraj Grover, learned Counsel for the Defendants at considerable length. Having considered their submissions and, with their assistance, the material on record, I found that the Plaintiffs have made out a very strong prima facie case. Irretrievable injury will, I have also found, be caused to the Plaintiff should reliefs be denied, and the balance of convenience demands the grant of the injunctions as sought. My reasons follow.