Case Note & Summary
The Plaintiff, Whirlpool of India Ltd., a subsidiary of Whirlpool Corporation, filed a suit for design infringement against Videocon Industries Ltd. The Plaintiff claimed that it had obtained two design registrations (Nos. 223833 and 223835) for washing machines, valid from 15th July 2009. In June 2012, the Plaintiff discovered that the Defendant was manufacturing and selling a washing machine under the brand name 'Videocon Pebble' which allegedly copied the Plaintiff's registered designs. The Plaintiff alleged that the shape, configuration, and color scheme of the Defendant's product were virtually identical to its own. The Plaintiff sought an interim injunction restraining the Defendant from infringing its designs. The Defendant opposed the application, arguing that the designs were not novel or original, were previously published, and that the Plaintiff had suppressed material facts. The Court compared the designs and found striking similarity. The Court held that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, the balance of convenience was in favor of the Plaintiff, and irreparable loss would be caused if the injunction was not granted. The Court granted an interim injunction in favor of the Plaintiff.
Headnote
A) Design Law - Infringement of Registered Design - Prima Facie Case - The Plaintiff, a subsidiary of Whirlpool Corporation, obtained design registrations for washing machines. The Defendant launched a similar product 'Videocon Pebble'. The Court held that a comparison of the designs showed striking similarity, and the Plaintiff's designs were novel and original, not previously published. The Defendant failed to establish prior publication or that the designs were not new. Held that the Plaintiff made out a prima facie case for infringement (Paras 1-10). B) Design Law - Interim Injunction - Balance of Convenience - The Court considered that the Plaintiff's designs were registered and valid, and the Defendant's product was a clear imitation. The balance of convenience was in favor of the Plaintiff as the Defendant could not claim any right to copy. Irreparable loss would be caused to the Plaintiff if injunction was not granted. Held that the Plaintiff is entitled to an interim injunction (Paras 11-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction restraining the Defendant from manufacturing and selling washing machines allegedly infringing the Plaintiff's registered designs.
Final Decision
The Court allowed the Notice of Motion and granted an interim injunction restraining the Defendant from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in washing machines that infringe the Plaintiff's registered designs.
Law Points
- Design infringement
- validity of design registration
- interim injunction
- comparison of designs
- novelty and originality
- prior publication
- cancellation of registration
- balance of convenience
- irreparable loss
