J. M. L. Sinha, J. - (1.) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 27th August, 1970 passed by a learned Single Judge in a suit under Section 29 of the Indian Patents and Designs Act.
(2.) THE suit out of which the appeal has arisen was filed by Messrs. Shri Krishna Industries, a registered partnership firm (hereafter to be called the respondent), doing business in the manufacture of locks. The respondent's case, briefly stated, was as follows :- In the year 1958 the respondent invented a new design of lock and got it registered under the Patents and Designs Act, 1911. The lock was sold under the trade mark of 'Rocket'. In 1965 a new type of lock was invented with improved key operated padlock; and on 1st of May, 1965 the respondent applied for and obtained Patent No. 99371 for the new lock as well. The newly invented lock became popular and earned a good place for itself in the market. The appellant No. 1 is also a registered partnership firm dealing in the manufacture of locks and the appellant No. 2 is one of the partners thereof. It is alleged that the appellants started manufacturing locks by counterfeiting and imitating the lock invented by the respondent. Since the appellants persisted in imitating the respondent's lock despite their protest, they had to file the suit which has given rise to this appeal. The reliefs claimed by the respondent were permanent injunction restraining the appellants and their partners etc. from manufacturing, selling or otherwise dealing in the locks similar to the design, shape and mechanism of the respondent's lock; of delivery of all finished and unfinished locks of that design in the possession of the appellants for the purposes of destruction; and of a decree for Rupees 1,000 as token compensation for the loss suffered by them.
(3.) THE suit was resisted by the appellants. It was admitted by them that they were manufacturing the lock marked "Narain Lock". They, however, pleaded that the respondent firm was not the first and true inventor of the lock of which it had obtained patent, nor was it the legal representative nor an assign of the first inventor. According to the appellants, the mechanism of the locks manufactured by the respondent was commonly used by other manufacturers as well and that the appellants were manufacturing their locks since much before the respondent obtained the patent. It was also pleaded by the appellants that the mechanism of the lock could not be got patented by the respondent because it was neither an invention nor did it involve any improvement. A number of other pleas were also raised by the appellants, but in view of the contentions raised before us, it is not necessary to refer to them. It may, however, be added that the appellants in their written statement also put in a counter-claim for the revocation of the patent.;