- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Two First Appeals were filed in the Delhi High Court, being FAO No. 131 and 132 of 2008, against two orders, both dated 28th March, 2008, passed by the Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata, under Section 19(1) of the Designs Act, 2000, cancelling two registered designs for "Insecticide Coil" in Class 12 belonging to the Respondent No. 1 herein. The question for determination before the High Court in the two appeals was whether the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the same against the order passed by the Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata. Inasmuch as, in the said two appeals, it was held by the Delhi. High Court that it had jurisdiction to entertain the appeals, these two appeals have been preferred by M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. against the said decision.
(3.) On 27th January, 2005, the Respondent No. 1 herein, M/s. Reckitt Benckiser Australia Pty. Ltd., filed a suit, being C.S. (O.S.) No. 121 of 2005, against the appellant, in the Delhi High Court alleging infringement of its Registered Designs bearing Nos. 184136 and 184137. The said suit is yet to be decided. On 4th February, 2005, the appellant herein filed his written statement in the suit, inter alia, contending that the aforesaid Designs of the Respondent No. 1 were liable to be cancelled under Section 22(3) of the Designs Act, 2000, on the ground that registration of the same had been obtained by concealment of facts and infringement of the Designs Registration Nos. 197811 and 197426, before the Controller of Designs at Kolkata. Similarly, the appellant herein also filed a Designs Cancellation Petition for cancellation of the Registered Design Nos. 184135, 184136 and 184137 standing in the name of the Respondent No. 1 on the same ground as alleged by the respondent in its petition for cancellation of the appellant's Designs. After certain interlocutory proceedings relating to the prayer made for transfer of the cancellation proceedings from the Controller of Designs to the Delhi High Court, the Controller of Designs heard the parties on 5th March, 2008 and reserved his order. Meanwhile, the respondents filed FAO (OS) No. 101/08 against the orders dated 13.2.2008 and 5.3.2008 passed by the Controller of Designs, Kolkata and the same was converted into a Petition under Article 227 of 'the Constitution. Initially the learned Single Judge was doubtful about the maintainability of the appeals. Thereafter, on 28th March, 2008, by three separate orders the Controller of Designs, Kolkata, cancelled the Registered Design Nos. 184135, 184136 and. 184137 belonging to Respondent No. 1. As indicated hereinabove, three First Appeals were preferred before the Delhi High Court, where a question arose with regard to the High Court's jurisdiction to entertain the appeals and by the orders impugned in these appeals the Delhi High Court held that the appeals were maintainable and it had jurisdiction to entertain the same.;