The case of Vibhas Bhutani vs Saurabh Katar revolves around a dispute concerning the alleged infringement of registered designs and copyright related to motorcycle accessories, specifically a “Protective Guard for Motorcycle.” The plaintiff, Vibhas Bhutani, proprietor of M/s Zana International, claimed to be a leading manufacturer of luxury bike accessories in India with several registered designs, including Design Registration No. 319847-001, for the aforementioned protective guard. The defendant, Saurabh Katar, proprietor of M/s Sans Moto Shop, was accused of selling products that allegedly infringed upon the plaintiff’s registered designs, thereby causing confusion among consumers and damaging the plaintiff’s goodwill.
The plaintiff filed the suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from infringing his registered designs and copyright, along with ancillary reliefs such as rendition of accounts, damages amounting to Rs. 5,00,000, and delivery of infringing products. The plaintiff argued that his designs were original and novel and had gained significant recognition in the market, both domestically and internationally. He further contended that the defendant’s actions were deliberate and aimed at exploiting the plaintiff’s reputation. To substantiate his claims, the plaintiff submitted design registration certificates, invoices of sales, screenshots of the defendant’s Instagram page showcasing allegedly infringing products, and a warranty card.
The defendant, in his written statement, denied all allegations and raised preliminary objections, including the maintainability of the suit, lack of novelty in the plaintiff’s designs, and non-joinder of necessary parties. The defendant argued that the designs in question were generic and had been in use long before the plaintiff’s registration. He also claimed that he was merely a reseller of products manufactured by a third party, M/s B.S Auto, and thus could not be held liable for design infringement. The defendant further challenged the plaintiff’s evidence, particularly the screenshots and warranty card, alleging they were insufficient to prove infringement.
The court framed nine issues to adjudicate the dispute, focusing on the validity of the plaintiff’s claims, the novelty of the designs, and whether the defendant had infringed the plaintiff’s rights. The plaintiff’s evidence included his testimony as PW1, where he reiterated the plaint’s averments and relied on documents such as design registration certificates, invoices, and screenshots. However, during cross-examination, inconsistencies emerged in the plaintiff’s claims, such as discrepancies about the founding year of his business and the absence of critical documents like export licenses or research and development records. The defendant, as DW1, denied selling infringing products and questioned the authenticity of the plaintiff’s evidence.
In its analysis, the court acknowledged that the plaintiff was the registered owner of the design in question, as evidenced by the certificates. However, it emphasised that registration alone was insufficient to grant relief; the plaintiff had to prove that the defendant had infringed the design. The court found the plaintiff’s evidence lacking in this regard. The screenshots and warranty card were deemed inconclusive, as they did not definitively establish that the defendant was selling identical or deceptively similar products. The court also noted the absence of an expert report comparing the designs, which could have provided clarity on the alleged infringement.
The plaintiff’s claim of substantial research and development efforts was undermined by the lack of supporting documentation and the failure to examine key witnesses, such as the alleged research team members. Similarly, the plaintiff’s assertions about his business’s market reputation were not corroborated by sufficient evidence, such as detailed sales records or export data. The court observed that the plaintiff’s application for the appointment of a local commissioner to inspect the defendant’s premises was not pressed, further weakening his case.
On the issue of novelty, the court noted that while the defendant claimed the designs were generic, he failed to provide concrete evidence of prior use. However, this did not absolve the plaintiff of his burden to prove infringement. The court concluded that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the defendant’s actions constituted a breach or threat to his legal rights. Consequently, the reliefs of permanent injunction, damages, and rendition of accounts were denied.
The court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish his case on the balance of probabilities. It emphasised that while the plaintiff’s design registrations were valid, the evidence did not prove that the defendant had infringed them. The judgment underscored the importance of robust evidence in intellectual property disputes, particularly in cases involving allegations of design infringement. The court’s decision also highlighted the challenges plaintiffs face in proving infringement without conclusive comparative analysis or expert testimony.
In summary, the case serves as a reminder of the evidentiary burdens in intellectual property litigation. While the plaintiff’s rights as a design owner were recognised, his inability to provide compelling evidence of infringement led to the dismissal of his claims. The judgment reinforces the principle that legal rights must be supported by factual proof to secure judicial relief.