1. Appeal No.62 of 2012 is filed against order dated December 23, 2011 of the learned Single Judge granting ad-interim relief by which the defendants are restrained from passing off the defendants footwear, which are held to be deceptively similar to the plaintiffs footwear.

The plaintiff has filed Appeal (L) No.97 of 2012 challenging the order dated December 9, 2011 by which the learned Single Judge had declined to grant ad-interim injunction on the basis of infringement of the plaintiffs registered design for the same footwear.

For the sake of brevity and convenience, the parties are referred to by their nomenclature in the suit.

2. On December 15, 1999 the plaintiff obtained registration under Designs Act, in relation to a footwear design, being registration No.181088. The registration mentioned that novelty resides in the shape, configuration and pattern of the "Footwear" as illustrated. It further indicated that the design is neither restricted to any colour or combination of colours, nor is any claim made by virtue of this registration to the exclusive use of the particular colour or combination of colours as illustrated in the representations. Similarly on December 29, 1999, the plaintiff obtained registration under the Designs Act in relation to footwear, being registration No. 181193 and third registration under the Designs Act in relation to another footwear on March 7, 2000 vide registration no.181829. The products are named by the plaintiff as "Methiyadi Yodhha", "Methiyadi Yoga" and "Methiyadi Export-SwamisZ". The plaintiff has been selling these products from 2000 onwards in the open market. Following is the chart showing annual turnover of the plaintiff.

Accounting yearAmounts (Rs.)

2006-2007Rs.53,27,359/-

2007-2008Rs.38,32,503/-

2008-2009Rs.1,21,37,480/-

2009-2010Rs.2,13,52,355/-

April-2010 to Jan-2011Rs.1,54,88,787/-

3. It is the plaintiff’s case, and not seriously disputed by the defendants that, upon coming to learn about infringement of the registered designs of the plaintiff, the plaintiff issued caution notice on June 14, 2009 and thereupon the infringing goods disappeared from the market. Thereafter on June 22, 2009, the defendants made an application for design registration identical to that of plaintiff. Prayer made in the said application for design registration was allowed and the defendant was granted design registration on December 14, 2009 vide registration No.223556. When the plaintiff became aware that the defendants’ design is registered, the plaintiff filed proceedings for cancellation of Registration No.223556 in October 2010. Again the infringed goods appeared in the market in October 2011. Therefore, the plaintiff filed present suit along with Notice of Motion seeking injunction against defendants on October 18, 2011. The defendant filed affidavit-in-reply to the Notice of Motion and pleaded, inter alia, the following defences:

i) The impugned design of the footwear registered by the plaintiff was not new and original. Even according to the plaintiff, his design was developed from "Padukas" which design has been commonly available since time immemorial. Therefore, the design of plaintiff cannot be said to be new or original;

ii) The plaintiffs footwear is a pattern which is normally used in the trade with a functional aspect. People at large and persons in the trade including the defendants have used the said pattern even prior to registration of the plaintiffs design. The plaintiffs design is not significantly distinguishable from known designs and/or is a combination of known designs. The plaintiff relied upon advertisements in the footwear news magazines;

iii) The design of stud of the plaintiffs footwear and defendants’ footwear are different and distinct from each other. The top of the stud in the defendants’ footwear has a surface pattern of circles within circle while the top of the stud in plaintiffs footwear has no surface pattern and is plain;

iv) The design of the plaintiffs footwear is duly registered on June 26, 2009 and the plaintiff has filed cancellation of the defendants’ registered design. The proceedings were still pending before the Controller of Designs as the arguments were heard but the orders were not yet pronounced. Therefore, the defendants being the registered proprietor of the registered design, should not be restrained till the design in his favour is cancelled through proper process of law. The suit was an attempt to overcome the Controller of Designs.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at the adinterim stage, the learned Single Judge passed an order dated December 9, 2011 declining to grant ad-interim relief on the basis of plaintiffs registered designs.

5. Thereafter the plaintiff filed Notice of Motion seeking injunction against the defendants on the basis of passing off. The hearing of the Notice of Motion was concluded on December 19, 2011. When the learned Single Judge dictated the order in the open Court on December 23, 2011, the plaintiff pointed out that the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs had passed an order dated December 20, 2011 cancelling defendants design. The plaintiff, therefore, submitted that injunction may be granted, both on the basis of infringement of the registered design and also on the basis of passing off. The learned Single Judge passed the impugned order dated December 23, 2011 granting injunction on the basis of passing off after giving the following reasons:-

a) The defendants rubber footwear seen as a whole indicates an intention on the part of the defendants to pass off their products as those of the plaintiffs. The shape, configuration and the placements of components are identical. The products are likely to be sold not merely in the same shop but are likely to be displayed on the same shelf, thus enhancing the probability of confusion;

b) The defendants had relied upon certain brochures but none of the items in the brochures indicate any similarity with the plaintiffs products;

c) The defendants had not offered any explanation as to how they conceptualized their products;

d) The defendants conduct also supported plaintiffs case that the defendants were trying to pass off their goods as that of the plaintiff. When the plaintiff noticed the defendants products in June 2009, the plaintiff issued a seize and desist notice in the newspapers as they were not aware of manufacturer of such products. Thereupon, the infringing products disappeared from the market and they appeared again at the end of the year but with a registration number.

6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated December 23, 2011, the defendant nos.1 to 4 have filed Appeal No.62 of 2012. The plaintiff has filed cross-objections insofar as learned Single Judge did not accept the plaintiffs prayer for grant of ad-interim injunction on the basis of infringement of the plaintiffs registered designs.

7. Appeal (L) No.97 of 2012 is filed by the plaintiff for challenging the order dated December 9, 2011 of the learned Single Judge declining to grant ad-interim injunction on the basis of infringement of the plaintiff’s registered designs.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

9. Dr. Tulzapurkar, learned senior counsel appearing for defendant nos.1 to 4 has raised the following contentions:-

(a) The plaintiffs registrations were wrongfully obtained as there was no novelty or originality. Section 4 of Designs Act, 2000 provides that a design which is not new or original or has been disclosed to the public anywhere in India or in any other country or not significantly distinguishable from known designs or combination of known designs, cannot be registered. Even as per plaintiffs case, the plaintiffs design is based on design of "Paduka" known in this country for more than 5,000 years. There is lack of novelty and originality.

Reliance is placed on Copyright and Industrial Designs by P.Narayanan, Fourth Edition in support of the contention that the design must be both, original and novel. It is submitted that the design was previously applied to wooden footwear and that the plaintiff’s applying the design to plastic footwear or rubber footwear does not make the design new or original. The application of the design on a particular material is immaterial. The footwear may be made of wood, plastic or leather. Under Section 6, a design is registered in respect of an article. The plaintiffs designs are registered in respect of footwear and the application of the said design to rubber footwear will not make the design new or original.

(b) The strap which was absent in the case of "Paduka" is also known and used prior to the registration of plaintiffs design. The same has been in use in respect of chappals for having a good hold on the feet. There is no novelty therein. Further the plaintiff has not been able to show any novelty in that strap or any feature of their footwear.

It is not open to the plaintiff to take one or more leading features of different goods already in the market and registering design showing merely a combination of these features, without any mental activity being required for its production. Reliance is placed on paragraph 27.59 of Copyright and Industrial Designs by P.Narayanan, Fourth Edition.

(c) Once the learned Judge himself had prima facie held on December 9, 2011 that there was no novelty in the design, it was not open to the learned Judge to take opposite view in the matter on December 23, 2011.

(d) Cancellation of defendants registration on December 20, 2011 is irrelevant for considering question of grant of relief to the plaintiff. It is only in case of Trade Marks that Section 28(3) gives protection of right of defence to a person having registered design in an action for infringement.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff has made the following submissions:-

(i) The plaintiffs registered designs will be in operation for 15 years and the plaintiff has already completed 12 years and the designs will be open to the public at large after about three years and hence at this stage the defendants want to flood the market with their footwear in violation of plaintiffs registered designs and also by passing off their footwear as that of the plaintiff.

(ii) The plaintiff has given figures of sale of their products having three registered designs which the plaintiff has been selling since the year 2000. However, the defendants who are in the footwear business since last several years, have not placed any figures of sale of the products in question. In fact, it is for the first time in December 2011 that the defendants advertised their product in the trade journal and no such advertisement was ever issued by the defendants prior to filing of the suit.

(iii) Novelty lies in the plaintiffs designs which not only have the stud, which was found in the wooden Padukas but the plaintiffs footwear also has a "Strap". There is no footwear in the market having these unique features of footwear having stud and strap. The novelty lies in the shape, configuration and pattern of the footwear and there is no other product in the market having similar design. In fact, in respect of three other products of the other manufacturers, the plaintiff had to file similar suits for infringement and the learned Single Judge has granted injunction against those manufacturers.

11. Having considered rival submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through record of the suit including the orders impugned in these appeals, we find considerable merit in the plaintiff’s case. In the year 1999-2000, the plaintiff obtained three registrations under the Designs Act, in relation to a footwear products, being Registration Nos. 181088, 181193 and 181829. the product of the plaintiff are named as “Methiyadi Yodhha”, “Methiyadi Yoga” and “Methiyadi Export- SwamisZ”. The annual turnover of plaintiff’s business, as given by the plaintiff, shows that the plaintiff was conducting wide and open sale of its products between 2000 to 2010. In the month of June 2009, the defendants made an application for design registration identical to the plaintiff’s prior registered design in footwear, and defendants was granted registration in December 2009 bearing Registration No. 223556. When the plaintiff became aware of the defendants identical design registration, it filed proceedings in the month of October 2010 for cancellation of the defendants’ aforesaid design registration. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs [for short “the Controller”] by his order dated 20th December 2011 cancelled the registration of design granted to the defendants in respect of footwear on 26th June 2009.

12. The Controller found that stud of the footwear of the defendants’ design is substantially similar to that of the plaintiff’s design No.181193. The Controller observed that the only variation of inscribing circles on the top end of the stud of defendants’ footwear is insignificant when viewed with regard to totality of the article. The foot resting surface of defendants design is similar to that of the plaintiff’s design no. 181088. The Controller further found that the general shape and design of footwear of the plaintiff as well as of the defendants is similar when viewed with regard to totality of the article. The Controller also recorded a finding that defendants design is not significantly distinguishable from combination of plaintiff’s design.

13. During the course of hearing of appeals, respective counsel produced for our inspection the designs of their respective footwear. After inspection we also found that except colour of footwear, the defendants’ design is not significantly distinguishable from the combination of the plaintiff’s design. Only upon minute examination, one may see slight variation so far as stud of the footwear is concerned. However, the same is insignificant when viewed with regard to the totality of the article. In aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the plaintiff has made out a strong prima facie case for grant of the ad-interim injunction on the basis of passing off.

14. Learned counsel for the defendants mainly relied upon the provisions of section 4, 19, 22(3) of the Designs Act, 2000 and submitted that the ground for cancellation of the registration of design under section 19 of the Designs Act is available as a ground of defence in a suit for action for infringement of registered design. It was further submitted that the plaintiff’s design is not new or original one, it was previously published, therefore, plaintiff is not entitled for injunction as prayed for. It was submitted that even as per the plaintiff’s case their design was developed from Padukas, which has been commonly available since time immemorial.

15. The submission is without any merit. The plaintiff is not claiming to be inventor of Padukas; and is not claiming exclusivity by way of a patent right. The plaintiff is claiming exclusivity in the “creative expression” - the “look and feel” of their products. The plaintiff’s design in footwear is statutorily accepted in view of the design registrations granted in the year 1999-2000 and since last many years these design registrations have not been challenged by any person including the present defendants.

16. The main thrust of Dr.. Tulzapurkar’s arguments is that originality of plaintiff’s designs themselves is doubtful, and keeping aside the defendants’ claim for registration of design, in the first place the plaintiff could not have been granted design registrations. Undoubtedly, the existence of Padukas in ancient times cannot be denied. However, in the recent past, it is not known that said feel and look of Padukas with the modification of strap to support the foot has been applied by any person to footwear. Application of design of Padukas – of its “look and feel”, to footwear by the plaintiff in the recent past certainly falls within the meaning of “Original” as defined in section 2(g) of theto the extent of “and includes the cases which though old in themselves yet are new in their application”.

17. What is important to note is that the defendants themselves sought registration of their “look and feel” in Padukas and therefore it is not open for the defendants to say that the plaintiff cannot claim exclusivity. The defendants themselves procured design registration in relation to footwear under design registration No. 223556 in June 2009, which was subsequently cancelled by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs on 20th December 2011. In these circumstances it cannot lie in the mouth of defendants to contend that the plaintiff’s design is not new or original or there is no novelty. We also find merit in the plaintiff’s contention that there is no footwear in the market having unique features of stud and strap like that of plaintiff. So far as the plaintiff’s designs are concerned, novelty lies in the shape, configuration and pattern of the footwear and there is no product in the market having similar design.

18. From the documents annexed to the plaint and to the notice of motion, it is abundantly clear that the plaintiff is in continuous business since 2000. The plaintiff has widely advertised its product and the same are widely available. This fact is corroborated by the annual turnover of their products given by the plaintiff. The conduct of the defendants is also worth taking note of. In June 2009, the plaintiff having become aware about the defendants infringing footwear, issued caution notice. Thereafter, the infringing goods disappeared from the market. However, after grant of design registration in their favour, the defendants’ infringing goods flooded the market and the same again disappeared after plaintiff filed proceedings for cancellation of design registration of the defendants.

19. The defendants have not explained how they conceptualized their product. The defendants have failed to produce sales figures or any advertising material either before the learned Single Judge or in a proceeding before the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. However, for the first time, in reply to the notice of motion taken out in Appeal No. 97 of 2012, they have given certain figures, however the same are not supported by any other documentary evidence.

20. Taking totality of the facts and circumstances into consideration, prima facie, we are of the opinion that the design of defendants’ footwear is identical / deceptive to the prior registered designs of footwear of the plaintiff.

21. We, therefore, dismiss Appeal No. 62 of 2012 and allow Appeal (L) No.97 of 2012. Accordingly, the appeal challenging the ad-interim injunction granted by the learned Single Judge in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants on the basis of passing off action is dismissed, i.e. ad-interim injunction shall continue to operate till final disposal of the Notice of Motion.

In the Notice of Motion filed by the plaintiff, there shall also be ad-interim injunction in terms of prayer clause (b) which reads as under:-

"b) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit the Defendants by themselves, their servants, dealers, distributors, retailers, stockists and agent be restrained by an permanent order and injunction of this Honble Court from manufacturing, selling, exposing for sale, distributing or exhibiting the Defendants footwear which is the subject matter in the Plaint herein and/or which are made in accordance with the registered designs depicted in Exh.B-1 to Ex.B-3 to the Plaint so as to pass off or be likely to pass off or enable others to pass off the Defendants footwear as and for those of the Plaintiff."

This ad-interim injunction shall also continue till the Notice of Motion is heard and decided finally by the learned Single Judge.

22. Since Appeal (L.) No.97 of 2012 is allowed, Cross Objections are not required to be decided and stand disposed of as such.

23. At this stage, learned counsel for defendant nos.1 to 4 prays for stay of operation of this order in order to have further recourse in accordance with law.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff opposes the prayer and submits that when Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs has already cancelled the registration in favour of the defendants as far back as on December 20, 2011 and the said order has not even been challenged so far, no ground is made out for granting stay.

24. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in the facts and circumstances of the case and also having regard to the fact that registration of the defendants design was cancelled on December 20, 2011 and that we have confirmed the finding of learned Single Judge that the defendants products are deceptively similar to the plaintiffs products, we see no justification to stay the operation of this order. The prayer for stay is rejected.