7.2 The learned Judge has also gone through the email as well as the other documents of the defendants and in paragraph No.35 of his order and he has observed that the documents produced by the defendants does not inspire confidence, that the details regarding the creator of the artistic design, namely Rajinder Singh, is absent and even in the affidavit, Rajinder Singh’s father name is not given and moreover, the certificate have been prepared in Indian Non-Judicial Stamp Papers and attested by the very same person, and those stamp papers were consecutive in number. Whereas the documents produced by the plaintiff are from the year 2015 onwards, they are contemporaneous in date and period, and that apart, the documents produced by the plaintiff inspire more confidence than the documents produced by the defendants. The learned Judge has also recorded in his findings that the defendants products bear the very same design of the plaintiff and that the first defendant being the distributor of the plaintiff, he could not claim more rights than his principal and also noted the statement of the plaintiff that the defendants taking advantage of being a distributor for plaintiff, had created their own design and are marketing the products under the name “DIABEAT”. The learned Judge has also taken into consideration the decision of the Bombay High Court in Suit (L) No.1842 of 2012, dated 23.12.2014, [Lupin Limited Vs. Johnson and Johnson] cited by the defendants and has distinguished the said judgment, by observing in paragraph No.30 of his order that in the case on hand, the distributors namely the defendants who have been appointed by the plaintiff, has usurped the artistic design of the plaintiff and had only interchanged the word, ‘DIABLISS’ with ‘DIABEAT’ and had commenced operations and had produced two documents from Rajinder Singh, whose details are not disclosed and as such, this Court
