CALICO PRINTERS ASSOCIATION, LTD Vs. DNMUKERJEA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit asking for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his servants and agent from importing, printing, offering and exposing for sale and selling, or in any way dealing with cotton materials not being those of the plaintiffs, with any or all the designs printed thereon, and from otherwise infringing the copyright of the plaintiffs designs, and for an order for inspection of the books of account and stock of the defendant, and ordering him to deliver up to the plaintiffs for destruction all the stocks in his possession of the infringing cotton materials, and for damages and costs.

(2.) The plaintiffs in their plaint stated, inter alia, that they were the proprietors of three new and original designs relating to cotton goods which were duly registered and the copyright in them duly extended by the Controller of Patents, which copyright is still in existence. Further they alleged that on 27 August 1935 it came to their knowledge that the defendant, with the knowledge that certain designs were imitations of the plaintiffs designs, had imported into Calcutta and stored and exposed for sale cotton materials manufactured in Japan not being the goods of the plaintiffs or manufactured by them, with the plaintiffs designs on them or close imitations thereof, and that thereby the defendant had infringed the copyright of the plaintiffs. Further they charged the defendant with applying or causing to be applied thereto fraudulent or obvious imitations of the plaintiff's designs for the purpose of selling his goods, without obtaining any license or consent from the plaintiffs. Further that he had knowingly applied or caused to be applied the said designs or fraudulent or obvious imitations thereof to the goods imported by him with the object of defrauding the public into the belief that they were purchasing the plaintiffs goods.

(3.) The defendant by his written statement denied the originality or novelty of the designs and stated that any such copyright, registration or protection obtained was invalid. He admitted selling certain cotton goods manufactured in Japan with designs similar to the plaintiffs designs, but he denied that he sold the goods with the knowledge that the designs were similar to or imitations of the plaintiffs designs or that he had imported such goods into Calcutta, and he denied that he had infringed the plaintiffs copyright. Further he denied that for the purpose of sale or at all he had applied or caused to be applied to his cotton goods fraudulent or obvious imitations of the plaintiffs designs, or with knowledge of the plaintiffs claim to any such copyright he had applied or caused to be applied the said designs or with such knowledge had exposed them for sale or had defrauded the public as alleged. Further he stated that the goods sold by him were offered and sold in ignorance of the rights of the plaintiffs, if any, in the alleged designs, and denied that he had imported any such goods, or that the plaintiffs had suffered any damages. In conclusion he said that he had been and still was ready and willing to undertake to the plaintiffs and to the Court not to deal with any goods printed with the plaintiffs designs aforesaid or any obvious imitations thereof in case and for such period as the plaintiffs established their copyright in the said designs.