DALIMA BISCUIT LTD RAJPURA Vs. NARAIN BISCUIT CO ALIAS NARAIN BAKERY, MUNICIPAL ROAD, RAJGANJ (DISTT W DINAJPUR) W BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispute of Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 355 to 358 and 360 of 1981 where common questions of law and fact are involved.

(2.) Dalima Biscuits Private Limited, Rajpura, District Patiala (hereafter the appellant) filed suits against all the respondents for permanent injunction restraining infringement of copy right, passing off, rendition of accounts, damages etc. Under Section 55 of the Copy Right Act, 1957. The suits were dismissed in June/July, 1974. The appellant filed regular first appeals against the orders of the trial Court which have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide separate order of dated September 11, 1980, against which the present Letters Patent Appeals are directed.

(3.) The appellant is carrying on the business of manufacturing and sale of biscuits, bread and confectionery under the name and style of Dalima Biscuits Private Limited in distinctive wrappers bearing 'Dalima' trade mark and one of its products is 'Dalima Thin Arrowroot Biscuits' wrapped in distinctive artistic wrappers of the type in which the words 'Dalmia' appear in Logo-script on red rectangular blocks with descriptive expression 'Delicious Thin Arrowroot Biscuits' in blue circles which are repeated at short intervals and are surrounded by oval shape devices in blue lines, giving the impression of an oval jug shape. Inside these oval shapes the letters 'ISI' and the words 'Contains Permitted Colours and Essences' appear in special formation. This artistic design is repeated at short intervals with the name of the appellant appearing in alternate oval jug formation. The appellant claims that these wrappers are being used by it continuously for the last one decade and have been registered under the Indian Copy Right Act, 1957, and as such the appellant has an exclusive right to use the same. The respondent in each appeal has adopted identical artistic work in relation to its wrappers in order to deceive the public and to create confusion in the trade and to earn profits in an illegal manner. It is also the case of the appellant that the wrapper of the respondent in each appeal is liable to pass off as its wrapper inasmuch as it tallies in essential and broad features. The get up of the packets using the wrapper of the respondents is the same as that of the appellant. The act of the respondent in each appeal has caused financial loss as also loss in reputation to the appellant.