1 O.A.Nos.830 and 831 of 2007 in C.S.No.602 of 2007 M. SUNDAR. J. Mr.K.Muthukumar, learned counsel is present on behalf of the plaintiff. Ms.S.Subashiny, learned counsel is present on behalf of the defendant. This Court is informed by both the learned counsel that pleadings are completed. Further written statements said to have been filed in the Registry is not readily traceable and the date of filing of diary number etc., is also not readily available and under such circumstances, the following course is adopted. 2.Learned counsel for defendant has produced a true copy of a written statement filed in August 2007. 3.Learned counsel for plaintiff perused the same and stated that it is adverbatim the same written statement served on her and taken on file earlier, therefore there is no issue between the two counsels as to pleadings being completed. 4.Under such circumstances, an exception is made and the true copy of the written statements produced in Court today, is taken on file as the written statement of the defendant. This is with the consent of the learned counsel for the plaintiff, as mentioned above. 2 5.Such a course is adopted to avoid time being wasted on applications to complete pleadings. 6.Now, that the pleadings are completed, issues can be framed. Learned counsel have also circulated draft issues as amongst themselves. Both the learned counsel are heard and the following issues are framed:- 1.In view of section 16, whether product passing off can be claimed under copyright Act, 1957? 2.Whether the relief of product passing off as sought for by the plaintiff in para 24(b) of the plaint is maintainable in this suit which has been filed only under section 51,55 and 62 of the copyright act, 1957, and not for passing off under section 27 of the Trademarks Act, 1999? 3.Whether the defendant has proved that its Standard 348 tractor is not a slavish limitation of the plaintiff's MF 245 DI Tractor? 4.Whether the defendant has infringed the plaintiff's copyright in the artistic work in the drawings for its tractors by substantially reproducing the artistic work either in 2- dimension or in 3-dimension in its Standard 348 tractor, parts and fittings? 5.Whether the defendant is passing of its Standard 348 tractors, parts and fittings as and for the plaintiff's MF 245 DI Tractors, parts and fittings? 6.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages of a 3 sum of Rs.10,05,000/- as prayed for? 7.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for rendition of true and faithful accounts of all the profits earned by the defendant using the plaintiff's drawings and amounts of profits? 8.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree to surrender to the plaintiff for destruction catalogues, drawings, any print material etc. with any reference whatsoever to the plaintiff or its MF 245 DI and the products manufactured thereon? 9.Whether the relief of permanent injunction claiming copy right infringement by the defendant is statutorily based under section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957? 10. Copyright being a statutory right and not a common law right, whether the relief of copyright passing off, not provided for under the Copyright Act, 1957, and being contrary to section 16 of the Copyright Act, 1957, is maintainable? 11.Whether functional aspects of any machinery or device can be protected under copyright law? 12.Whether the parts of and the plaintiff's tractor models MF245DI and MF1035DI are in public domain? 13.Whether drawings of tractor parts having industrial application and commercial exploitation would be covered under the Copyright act, after coming into force of the new Design Act, 2000? 4 M. SUNDAR. J. kp 14.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for costs of the proceedings? 15.To what other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to? 7.Post the matter before learned Additional Master-III on 21.11.2016. Prior to the said date however endeavor should be taken by the parties, for filing proof affidavit so that, marking of documents and cross examination can go on on 21.11.2016. 8.It is represented that there may be some difficulty on the part of the plaintiff in adhering to this time limit. If there is no such difficulty, the learned Master shall accommodate the plaintiff for a period not exceeding two weeks. 24.10.2016 kp O.A.Nos.830 & 831 of 2007 in C.S.No.602 of 2007