Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar

Bombay High Court Denies Interim Reliefs in Design Infringement and Passing Off Case: Plaintiff Fails to Establish Prima Facie Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Date: June 5, 2023

In a recent decision, the Bombay High Court dismissed an application seeking interim reliefs in a design infringement and passing off case, as the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case. Justice Manish Pitale, presiding over the case, delivered the judgment, highlighting the crucial aspects of the dispute.

According to the judgment, the defendant argued that the plaintiff's design had already been published prior to its registration, thereby diluting its value and rendering it ineligible for protection. The court took note of the material presented, including social media posts and invoices, which indicated that the plaintiff's design was in the public domain before its registration on September 8, 2018.

Justice Pitale observed, "The defendant has shown that the plaintiff's design was already in the public domain and published prior to the date of its registration." The court further noted that a comparison of the designs showcased in the social media posts and the registered design revealed a prima facie similarity, casting doubts on the novelty and originality of the registered design.

The judgment emphasized that the plaintiff needed to demonstrate "something more" than mere similarity to successfully claim interim reliefs in a passing off case. The defendant presented a table of comparison highlighting differences in various aspects, such as canopy, packaging, and other features of the rival products. The court found that the plaintiff had not been able to establish this additional element, thus weakening their claim.

Justice Pitale stated, "The plaintiff has failed to make out a strong prima facie case about novelty and originality of its registered design. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot rely upon a mere trade variant to seek orders of interim injunction against third parties."

The court further clarified that the observations made in the order were limited to the disposal of the application, and the suit would proceed on its merits without being influenced by this decision.

Date of Decision: 5th June, 2023

 Atomberg Technologies Private Limited vs Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited 

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/05-June-23-Autoberg-Vs-Luker-Bomb-HC-1.pdf"]

Latest Legal News