AREA: Design
FACTS:
The Plaintiff (Good Earth) in this case has registered designs for the above-mentioned designs and on searching the design database. The plaintiff claims to be the original creator, inventor, and owner of various designer collections, including SERAI, PERIYAR, VRINDAVAN, BALI MYNAH, LOTUS, ROSE PRINCESS, and FALCON. The plaintiff is the registered owner of copyrights in the artworks of certain collections under the Designs Act, of 2000. Good Earth has over 100 design applications in India. Over the years, they have become a well-known brand, not only in India but also in other countries. They have retail outlets in Singapore, Turkey, and Nepal. One of the defendants (India Circus – Krishna Mehta) was an employee of Good Earth and was a part of the creative team that designed several designs. Defendant No.1 was previously employed as a Design Consultant on a retainership basis but left the plaintiff company in 2012. On his exit from the company, Good Earth found that he was selling the designs under the brand name India Circus, a company he founded in November 2011. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant's actions are causing confusion among buyers and harming the plaintiff's business and reputation. The plaintiff contends that online buyers are easily deceived as they cannot physically inspect the quality of the products, leading to confusion with the plaintiff's products. The plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction, passing off, unfair competition, dilution, rendition of accounts and damages, etc. against the defendants. Along with the suit, the plaintiff has also applied for an injunction.
ISSUE:
Whether the defendant is liable for getting an injunction or not?
ANALYSIS:
The Plaintiff in response stated that they have made out a case of passing-off by reiterating the test laydown in case of passing-off of designs.
Goodwill or reputation attached to the goods sold by Plaintiff, misrepresentation by Defendant which confuses the minds of the consumer and such actions have caused damage or are likely to cause damage to Plaintiff are the 3 tests.
The Plaintiff also mentioned that Krishna Mehta had started his business in November 2011 and only disclosed this to the Plaintiff in 2012.
By this, the Plaintiff tried to establish the mala fide intentions on part of the Defendant.
The plaintiff also submitted some emails to the Court evidencing that this wasn’t the only case of copying by the Defendant and that they had copied many designs.
JUDGMENT:
The Court concurred with the arguments of the Plaintiff and held that they satisfied the test for passing-off and that the acts of the Defendant were causing confusion in the minds of the consumers. The Court made the interim injunction absolute, thereby forbidding the Defendants from using the said designs. However, for the Defendants relief, the Court allowed them to use the design of Vrindavan and Falcon since it wasn’t similar to that of the Plaintiff and also allowed them to use the Periyar design without any limitation since it wasn’t held to be similar either. In this particular case, the Court has considered some factors like novelty, a test of passing-off, a relationship of Plaintiff and Defendant…etc. to decide on this matter.
Comentários