Brief Facts
Purosis International LLP, the appellant, filed an appeal challenging the order dated January 23, 2024, passed by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court. The dispute revolved around a design infringement case where the appellant alleged that the respondents, V3 Poly Plast & Ors., had infringed upon their design. The Single Judge had ruled that the new design proposed by the respondents did not fall within the scope of an earlier injunction order and permitted them to proceed with its implementation. The appellant sought to amend its plaint to include a specific challenge to the respondents' new design.
Issues
The primary issue before the court was whether the appellant should be allowed to amend the plaint to challenge the new design of the respondents. A secondary issue was whether the appellant could seek fresh interim relief against the respondents' new design, despite the earlier ruling of the Single Judge.
Submissions of Parties
The appellant submitted that they should be permitted to amend their plaint to challenge the new design introduced by the respondents, as the impugned order had allowed the respondents to proceed with it. They also sought clarification that the findings of the Single Judge would not prejudice the final outcome of the trial.
The respondents, while not opposing the amendment of the plaint, expressed concerns that the appellant might use this order to file a fresh application for interim relief, which they argued had already been decided by the Single Judge. The respondents contended that allowing a fresh interim injunction application would reopen an issue that had already been adjudicated.
Reasoning and Analysis of Judge
The court recognized the appellant’s right to amend its plaint to challenge the respondents' new design. It acknowledged that such a challenge should be decided at trial based on the evidence presented by both parties. However, the court also considered the respondents’ argument that a fresh application for interim relief should not be entertained since the issue had been settled in the impugned order.
The court balanced both parties' interests by allowing the amendment but prohibiting the appellant from filing a fresh interim injunction application against the respondents' new design. The judges emphasized that the question of whether the new design infringes upon the appellant’s design should be determined during the final trial.
Decision of Judge
The court allowed the appellant to amend its plaint to challenge the new design of the respondents. However, it barred the appellant from filing a fresh application for interim relief against the new design, holding that the issue had already been decided in the earlier order. The court also noted that the decision should not be circulated in trade circles to prevent any undue commercial implications.
