This legal article delves into the intricacies of interim injunctions concerning the infringement of design, with a specific focus on a recent case where the court partially allowed the Interim Injunction in favor of the Plaintiff. The article explores the important legal ratios and principles that emerged from this decision, shedding light on the nuanced considerations undertaken by the court.

Introduction:
Interim injunctions play a pivotal role in intellectual property law, particularly in cases of design infringement. This article examines a recent legal development where an Interim Injunction was partially allowed in favor of the Plaintiff, highlighting key legal principles that shape such decisions.

Prima Facie View in Ad Interim Injunctions:
One critical aspect of the court's decision is the recognition that Ad Interim Injunction orders reflect only a prima facie view. This implies that the court, at the interim stage, considers the evidence and arguments presented by both parties to form an initial opinion. The court acknowledges the temporary nature of this view, understanding that a comprehensive assessment will occur during the trial.

Non-Binding Nature of Ad Interim Injunctions:
The article emphasizes the non-binding nature of Ad Interim Injunction orders. While these orders provide immediate relief to the Plaintiff, they do not conclusively determine the outcome of the case. The court's decision to partially allow the Interim Injunction underscores the recognition that further examination is required during the trial.

Comparison of Design with Respect to the Eye:
A crucial legal ratio established in the recent case is the principle that the comparison of designs must be conducted with respect to the eye. This implies that the court considers the visual impression created by the designs and assesses the likelihood of confusion or imitation from the perspective of an ordinary observer.

Comparison Between Registered Design and Impugned Design:
Traditionally, the comparison is made between the registered design of the Plaintiff and the impugned design of the Defendant. This standard approach ensures a direct assessment of similarities and differences. The court's adherence to this principle reaffirms the importance of comparing the designs at the core of the infringement claim.

Visual Appeals of Competing Products:
In an interesting departure from the norm, the court in this case allowed consideration of the visual appeals of competing products beyond the registered designs. This broader perspective enables a more comprehensive evaluation, taking into account the overall visual impact of the products in question.

Factors Indicating a Conscious Attempt to Imitate:
The court's acknowledgment that it can consider factors indicating a conscious attempt by the Defendant to imitate the Plaintiff's design adds a layer of subjectivity to the analysis. This recognizes that design infringement cases may involve subtle nuances and deliberate efforts to replicate distinctive elements.

The Concluding Note:
This legal article provides an in-depth analysis of a recent case where the court partially allowed an Interim Injunction in favor of the Plaintiff in a design infringement matter. The identified legal ratios and principles shed light on the court's approach to interim relief, emphasizing the provisional nature of such orders and the need for a comprehensive examination during the trial.

The nuanced considerations, such as the eye-level comparison and the assessment of visual appeals beyond registered designs, underscore the evolving nature of design infringement jurisprudence.

The Case Law Discussed:
Case Title: Havells India Limited Vs Polycab India Limited
Date of Judgement/Order:06.12.2023
Case No. W.P.(C) 4312/2014
Neutral Citation No:2023:DHC:8764
Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court
Name of Hon'ble Judge: C Hari Shankar, HJ

Disclaimer:
Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation expressed herein are being shared in the public Interest. Readers' discretion is advised as these are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539