Dismissed

M/S.Taranga Technologies v. M/S.Neels Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Madras HC24 Jan 2020A/8111/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This interim application sought to vacate an injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing manhole covers infringing the plaintiff's registered design. The Court examined tender specifications and design novelty, rejecting the defendant's claim that adhering to specifications negated infringement. The Court upheld the injunction against the defendant.

What did the court decide?

Application to vacate the interim injunction was dismissed; interim order restraining the defendant from manufacturing infringing manhole covers was confirmed.

M/S.Taranga Technologies Vs M/S.Neels Enterprises Pvt… — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶4

A.No.8111 of 2019 IN C.S.No.555 of 2019

¶5

M/s.Neels Enterprises Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director Mr.A.K.Neelakrishnan Basement Floor, No.38/40, North Boag Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017, and having its registered address at 37,State Bank Colony Road, Pazhavanthangal, Chennai-600 114. ..Plaintiff /Vs./ M/s.Taranga Technologies Plot No.59, 4^th Line, Syamalanagar, Guntur- 522 006, Andhra Pradesh. ..Defendant A.No.8111 of 2019: M/s.Taranga Technologies Plot No.59, 4^th Line, Syamalanagar, Guntur 522 006, Andhra Pradesh. ..Applicant/Defendant Vs M/s.Neels Enterprises Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director Mr.A.K.Neelakrishnan Basement Floor, No.38/40, North Boag Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. ..Respondent/Plaintiff

¶6

Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to vacate the ex-parte ad interim injunction granted by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 23.09.2019.

¶7

This Application coming on this day before this Court for hearing, the Court made the following order: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶8

¶9

This application is filed praying to vacate the exparte ad-interim injunction granted by this Court vide order dated 23.09.2019.

¶10

permanent injunction and damages alleging infringement of its registered design and passing off by the defendant.

¶11

taken out an application for interim injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from infringing the registered design and passing off. This Court on hearing the learned counsel for the applicant therein and perusing the records has passed the following order in O.A.Nos.870 and 871 of 2019 on 23.09.2019. Thereafter, the defendant has filed the present application in A.No.8111 of 2019 in C.S.No.555 of 2019 to vacate the interim order already granted. Pending consideration of this application, this Court taking note of the inconvenience expressed by the defendant, has passed the following order on 25.10.2019.

¶12

"This Court already granted interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

¶13

2.It appears that the main issue involved in this suit is with regard to the usage of the cover (chamber copy) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in the outlets of petrol bunk by infringing the designs of the plaintiff

¶14

¶15

and in view of the interim orders passed by this Court, the tanks of Petrol bunks have not been closed in many places.

¶16

3.Having regard to the fact this if the defendant is prohibited from covering the tanks, it will lead to serious consequences during the monsoon, this Court permitted the respondent/defendant to close the tanks of the petrol bunk with the cover, within the jurisdiction of this Court."

¶17

Today, the learned counsel appearing for both

¶18

parties have submitted their arguments in the interim injunction and vacate interim injunction.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant as well as the respondent.

¶20

It is the case of infringement of design. The

¶21

suit is filed on the premise that the registered design of the plaintiff has been infringed by the defendant and had successfully participated in the tender floated by BPCL for supply of Advanced Hydraulic Manhole Cover.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the

¶23

applicant/plaintiff as well as the respondent/defendant have https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ made their submissions in their respective applications

¶24

seeking injunction and vacate injunction.

¶25

¶26

According to the applicant/plaintiff, one

¶27

Mr.T.S.Ramasamy obtained design registration on 21.12.2012 for specific shape and configuration in respect of manhole hydraulic cover with novelty. The registered proprietors of the design was assigned to the plaintiff his right on 17.04.2015. Later, the plaintiff also obtained registration for the surface pattern of the manhole cover on 20.07.2016. While so, it is alleged that the defendant has imitated the plaintiff design and manufacturing Hydraulic Manhole Cover supplying to petroleum corporations to cover the fuel tanks in the outlets.

¶28

The crux of the dispute is that MATC supplied by the defendant to BPCL at Chennai is identically similar to the design of the plaintiff product. Therefore,

¶29

injunction has to be granted restraining the defendant from fabricating manhole identical to the registered design of the plaintiff. Whereas, it is contended by the respondent that the alleged claim on the design and specification in respect of the manhole cover supplied by the respondent is

¶30

only a prior art and there is no novelty in the design. In fact, they have supplied the manhole cover as per the specification mentioned by the BPCL.

¶31

Thus, the issue between the parties gets zero

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶33

down to the fact, whether the BPCL has invited the tender

¶34

¶35

for supply of Hydraulic Manhole Cover based on a particular specification and whether such specification will give any right for the bidders to manufacture on their own such MATC. For that purpose, this Court perused the tender specification floated by BPCL, which clearly states that hydraulic cylinder make SKG Germany or equivalent approved by BPCL and the covers shall confirm by the following standards:

¶36

"5.The cover shall confirm to DIN EN 124 standards, the cover shall be fabricated using heavy duty outer frame and checkered top cover plate. The covers are fabricated using graded mild steel chequered plates conforming to IS3500-1994 and base metal conforming to IS 2062-2006. The cover shall confirm to class D 400 testing standards for minimum deflection due to constant movement of heavy loads. (LOAD TEST certificate (as per DIC EN 124 standards) from a government recognized test Laboratory to be provided at the time of technical bid opening)."

¶37

While the plaintiff is able to show that the product of the plaintiff is S.K.G. Germany equivalent and approved by BPCL and have a patent for the said product; merely because the specification given by the tenderer has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ been complied by the defendant, he cannot take advantage of the specification and manufacture the cover and claim that

¶38

¶39

there is no infringement of the plaintiff design.

¶40

The learned counsel appearing for the

¶41

defendant would submit that BPCL being the procurer without impleading BPCL, the plaintiff cannot sustain the suit.

¶42

This Court is not in agreement with the said submission. This is a specific case of the infringement of design by the defendant. Whereas BPCL is only the procurer. Non-impleading the procurer will not give protection to the defendant for his act of infringement. Likewise, the minor variations in the handle and the few parts of the design of hydraulic manhole cover will also not take away the major imitation found in the defendant's product.

¶43

One of a very crucial points which has been

¶44

brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel

¶45

appearing for the plaintiff is that, till the confirmation of the tender, the defendant had not manufacturer the

¶46

manhole cover. As a pre-condition, the participant in the tender ought to have testified the tenderer about their

¶47

products quality. How the defendant had satisfied the tenderer without having the product manufactured by their own is questionable when admittedly, they have started manufacturing only after the confirmation of the tender. It

¶48

appears showing the plaintiff's product the defendant had https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶49

got the tender that apart, when the tenderer has given a

¶50

¶51

particular specification and that particular design of the said specification of the product is exclusively held by the plaintiff, just because, being a successful bidder the defendant cannot manufacture the product on its own, unless and until he had manufactured some product earlier and that has been approved by BPCL as equivalent of SKG Germany make.

¶52

In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is sufficient reasons and grounds to restrain the defendant from manufacturing MATC imitating the registered design of the plaintiff. Therefore, the interim order passed on 23.09.2019 is confirmed and accordingly, this application is dismissed.

¶53

proceedings.

¶54

24.01.2020

¶55

JJ 05/02/2020 COURT OFFICER(O.S.)

¶56

From 25th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶57

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/S.Taranga Technologies v. M/S.Neels Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Taranga Technologies v. M/S.Neels Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dingo Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. Vs Akb & Sons Reality Pvt. Ltd.

Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and 41 others

M/s.Sri Balaji Educational and Charitable Public Trust (Regd) Vs M/s.East Coast Constructions Ltd.

M/s.National Ventures Pvt. Limited Vs M/s.Trois Corporation Hk Ltd.

N. Venkatesan., Vs T.N.Janarthanan

M/s.Devendra Autocom Pvt.Ltd. Vs M/s.Traverse Infotechh