1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2219 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.1573 OF 2007 Kores (India) Ltd. ....Plaintiff V/s. M/s.Whale Stationery Products Ltd. ....Defendant Mr.Manish Saurashtri with Mr.Utkarsh Tewari i/b Shantilal & Co. for the Plaintiff. None for the Defendant. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 29TH AUGUST, 2009. P.C. :- 1. This is an action inter-alia for infringement of copyright. The Plaintiff claims to be the owner of the copyright of the artistic works in Exhibits “A” and “B”. Exhibit “A” is the label which is applied on the cartons containing the Plaintiff’s product viz. pencil carbon sheets. The Plaintiff claims to be the owner of the copyright on the products as well. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant has infringed the copyright in both exhibits. 2. The Plaintiff’s copyright both on the carton as well as on the carbon paper comprises essentially of a background of distinctive silver streaks with uneven borders and varying lengths and thickness on a blue surface. There are a set of two rectangular boxes placed in the shape of the letter “L”. The word SAPPHIRE appears in each of the rectangular boxes. Parallel to the lower horizontal rectangular boxes is another 2 rectangular box with a silver background with letter “KORES”. Above this is a square with the device of three flying horses. The dimension of the square is about half that of the longer side of the lower rectangular box with the word “KORES”. The square and smaller rectangular are also placed in the shape of the letter “L”. The Plaintiff got the artistic work prepared and has been using the same commercially since about in the year 1963. The artistic work on the labels, on the cartons and the artistic works on the products are similar. 3. The Defendant’s artistic work is almost identical in all material respects. Only the words in the rectangular boxes and the devices in the square are different. There is little if any doubt, that whether the Plaintiff’s work is juxtaposed with the Defendant’s work or whether the two are viewed independently even with the passage of time it would leave the viewer with the impression that the Defendant’s work is a copy of the Plaintiff’s artistic work. The above features form a predominant part of the Plaintiff’s work. The artistic work in the label placed on the carton and the artistic work on the product both in the case of the Plaintiff as well as in the Defendant’s case are similar. 4. In the circumstances, the Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayers (a), (c) and (d). Pursuant to the ad-interim order dated 4.7.2007, the Court Receiver had already taken possession of the goods and executed the order. The Court Receiver shall continue in respect of the said goods. 5. The Notice of Motion is accordingly disposed of.