In Schreder S.A & Anr (Plaintiffs) v Electrical
Lines (Defendant) an Interim Application (I.A.) under Order
No. XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151, Code of Civil
Procedure(CPC), was filed by Schreder S.A & Anr. The suit was
filed for permanent injunction, restraining infringement and
passing off of design registration.
Schreder S.A & Anr are engaged in the sale of luminaries and
were also granted registration for their design known in the market
by the name of RT3 and ONYX respectively. On noticing that
Electrical Lines was selling luminaries identical to theirs, they
served a Cease and Desist Notice upon but them, however Electrical
Lines neither replied nor stopped infringing Schreder S.A &
It was contended by Schreder S.A & Anr that Electrical Lines
had adopted the impugned designs to deceive the public and encash
on their goodwill and that as a result they had suffered great loss
and damage, and unless the immediate relief prayed for was granted,
they would continue to suffer. It was averred that Electrical Lines
was selling its goods at a very low price, which would destabilize
Schreder S.A & Anrs selling network. Further, it was contended
that Electrical Lines had no legal right to encroach upon the
goodwill and reputation Schreder S.A & Anr.
Electrical Lines counter argued that it was neither a
manufacturer nor an importer, but only an authorized
dealer/stockist of the product. They stated that they had not
contravened any conditions enumerated in Section 22 of the Design
Act and that there was no infringement of the design of Schreder
S.A & Anr. Moreover, it was argued that the price of the
products was not decided by Electrical Lines as it was just a
dealer, therefore, it would be wrong to say that the low price
offered by them would destabilize the selling network of Schreder
S.A & Anr.
The Court in this regard made the following observations:
● Where two designs (RT3 and ONYX) were registered,
the design RT3 had already expired after its life of 15 years.
Therefore, it had already become public domain after the expiry,
and relief could not be granted to Schreder S.A & Anr
pertaining to the said design.
In regard as to whether Electrical Lines was guilty of
infringement of the said design or not, it was observed that the
design registration filed as well as the catalogue of Schreder S.A
& Anr, that were submitted in order to prove their case, did
not make it clear as to what were the differences and
distinctiveness of the shape and configuration of the Design in
It was further observed that the bare perusal of the said
product, as shown by Electrical Lines, with the product of Schreder
S.A & Anr with regard to the shape and configuration thereof,
did not appear to be clear and, therefore it was not possible for
the court to pass an interim order unless the two products were
placed side by side and their clear photographs were shown.
Furthermore, the court observed that with regard to the issues
in this matter Schreder S.A & Anr had been granted time to file
the list of witnesses and the affidavits of evidence within two
weeks from the date that the matter had been filed. However, they
had failed to file the evidence even after several opportunities
were provided to them. Hence, the net result was that the they had
failed to produce any witness in this case.
Thus, in consideration of the aforesaid reasons, the Learned
Judge refused to pass an interim order in favour of Schreder S.A
& Anr. It was held that the findings arrived at by the Court on
merit about the rival products would have no bearing, when the main
suit was decided on merit after the trial. This application
therefore was disposed off.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
This article enunciates the recent, much awaited, and landmark judgment delivered on September 16, 2016 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court throwing light on the important provisions of the Copyright Act, 1962.
Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion recently issued an office memorandum pursuant to receiving representations from various stakeholders for guidance with respect to the applicability of the provisions of Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957.
An Invention Disclosure Form is the documentation of the invention. This is a means to document particulars of your invention and submitting it to the patent attorney who is filing your patent application.
The Patents Act 1970, along with the Patents Rules 1972, came into force on 20th April 1972, replacing the Indian Patents and Designs Act 1911. The Patents Act was largely based on the recommendations of the Ayyangar Committee Report headed by Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar. One of the recommendations was the allowance of only process patents with regard to inventions relating to drugs, medicines, food and chemicals.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).