In this case the Plaintiff, the largest footwear producer in India, filed an application seeking
ex-parte injunction against the Defendant.
The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant imitated Plaintiff’s products/design/trade dress/get up.
The Court analyzed the case at hand from the purview of Sections 2, 4, 5, 19, 22 of the Designs
Act, 2000 and various cases.
It noted that mere registration of the design would not entitle a registrant of the design to claim
protection. It would always be open to the Defendant to plead and set up a defense of lack of
novelty or existence of prior art.
The Court stated that the test in deciding such matters was: “judged solely by the eye are the
essential features present or are the two substantially different”.
The Court compared their products and concluded that prima facie the Defendant had copied
Plaintiff’s design. It was brought to the Court’s notice that although the Defendant alleged lack of
originality in Plaintiff’s design, it had applied for registration of a similar design.
The Court stated that the issue of the existence of prior art would be considered after evidence
had been led. The Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience
was in its favor, and hence, an interim injunction was granted against the Defendant.
Kent Ro Systems Ltd & Anr vs Amit Kotak & Ors on 18 January, 2017
WhatsApp Us