In the intricate realm of intellectual property rights, clashes often arise, showcasing the delicate balance between innovation and protection. One such saga unfolded in the case of Rishabh Plast India Private Limited vs Swastik Industries & Anr., illuminating the legal landscape surrounding design infringement in India.
Background
Rishabh Plast India Private Limited (plaintiff) is a well-known manufacturer in the plastic products industry, recognised for its innovative designs and high-quality offerings. The company registered a unique design for one of its key products under the Designs Act, 2000. This registration provided Rishabh Plast with exclusive rights to use and exploit the design, legally protecting it from unauthorised use by competitors.
Rishabh Plast’s registered design for storage containers represents not just a product but a culmination of creativity and painstaking effort. Yet, Swastik Industries & Anr. (defendants), another player in the plastic industry, allegedly sought to replicate this design, sparking a fierce legal confrontation.
The plaintiff claimed that the defendant’s products bore a design under the model’s name ‘JONY VINTAGE’ that was substantially similar to its own registered design for storage containers ‘NIKOLA’, leading to market confusion and potential damage to its business and thus faces accusations of capitalising on the goodwill and reputation built by the plaintiff over the years. The plaintiff also claimed that the products sold by the defendant had strikingly similar features, which were copied from the plaintiff’s registered design.
The infringing activities of the defendants came to the knowledge of the plaintiff when the plaintiff received several complaints from consumers. Thereafter, the plaintiff sent a cease-and-desist notice dated January 08, 2024, to the defendants via email. To this, a response dated January 13, 2024, was received from the defendants wherein it was stated– firstly, they found the plaintiff’s assertion valid and acknowledged the same; secondly, they were undertaking not to use the infringing design in the future; thirdly, assuring that they would discontinue the infringing product with immediate effect; and lastly, they would destroy manufacturing moulds, dies, and related apparatus uses to manufacture the infringing product and for the same, time until February 29, 2024 was sought.
However, post the said undertaking, the defendants continue with selling of infringing products, including advertising it through social media handles of Instagram and Facebook. As a result, the plaintiff has filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions and damages, which was admitted by the court.
Delhi High Court’s Insightful Observation
The Delhi High Court meticulously analysed the designs in its order, focusing on substantial similarities and the likelihood of consumer deception. It upheld the plaintiff’s exclusive rights, confirming that the defendant’s design was not only similar but likely to mislead consumers, constituting an infringement.
The court granted the injunction in favour of Rishabh Plast India Private Limited, ordering Swastik Industries to cease using the infringing design immediately in all forms of manufacturing, marketing, and sales activities. The court’s order emphasised the importance of protecting trademark rights to maintain business integrity and consumer trust.
The matter is now listed for further proceedings on October 16, 2024, wherein the court will further examine any additional evidence presented, assess compliance with the interim orders, and address any pending issues related to the case.
Conclusion
This case underscores the importance of design registration in protecting the unique visual appearance of products and preventing market confusion. It highlights the robust legal framework provided by the Designs Act, 2000, which safeguards the interests of design owners against unauthorised copying and use by competitors. The judgment reinforces the need for businesses to respect intellectual property rights and the legal consequences of infringement.
The implications of this case extend far beyond legal precedent. It serves as a clarion call for businesses to uphold ethical standards and respect the intellectual property rights of others. Moreover, it underscores the role of legal recourse in preserving innovation and fostering a climate conducive to creativity by protecting the rights of creators and innovators. The case of Rishabh Plast India Private Limited vs Swastik Industries & Anr. thus becomes a cornerstone in the ongoing evolution of design protection in India.
