Bombay High Court restrains Astral Adhesives from using container similar to M-Seal PV Seal

The Bombay High Court has temporarily restrained Astral Adhesives from using containers similar to the one used by Pidilite Industries' solvent cement, M-Seal PV Seal [Pidilite Industries Limited v Astral Limited]. .Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla ruled that if injunction is not granted, Pidilite would face grave loss, harm and prejudice given the balance of convenience in its favour.."If the injunction as sought in prayer (a) is not granted, then grave loss, harm and prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff as the defendant would then continue to use the impugned container with the design of the plaintiff. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant," the order dated June 13 stated..The Court was hearing an interim application in a suit filed by Pidilite against Astral to restrain them from using containers as well as labels similar to those used by Pidilite.It was claimed that Astral was using similar containers and labels for its solvent cement, Solvobond..Pidilite argued that Astral's containers were identical to the registered design of Pidilite’s container, including identical shape, configuration, caps with vertical lines and extended ridges and multiple grooves below the cap connecting to the seal of the container..Astral sought to defend their use on the grounds that Pidilite’s container was not a design as defined under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act as it did not appeal to the eye, was a common design and was merely a trade variant not entitled to protection.It contended that there were several other products using similar bottles. It was also argued that the design of Pidilite had lost novelty since they had also applied for a patent prior to the design in which the design was disclosed..Pidilite contended that their design and its visible features were original and novel in shape and configuration and in compliance with the definition of design in Section 2(d) and the requirements of originality and novelty under Section 2(g) of the Designs Act.They asserted that they had a valid design registration for the M-Seal PV Seal container and that "appeal to the eye" did not imply artistic merit. Pidilite also stated that although they had applied for a patent, it was not published at the time the design was applied for and, therefore did not affect the design's novelty. Additionally, they argued that the other products Astral relied upon were not similar to Pidilite's design and even if others were infringing the design, Astral was not entitled to do so as well..The Court agreed with each of the contentions raised by Pidilite and temporarily restrained Astral from using containers similar to Pidilite’s M-Seal PV SEAL Container. .The Court held that Astral failed to demonstrate the existence of any design prior to Pidilite's. It also ruled that the features of Pidilite’s design, whether considered individually or as a whole, were not present in any of the designs cited by Astral..Pidilite was represented by Senior Advocate Virag Tulzapurkar and advocate Hiren Kamod. They were instructed by advocates Nishad Nadkarni, Aasif Navodia, Khushboo Jhunjhunwala, Rakshita Singh and Jaanvi Chopra from Khaitan & Co. Astral was represented by Senior Advocate Ashish Kamat and advocates Rashmin Khandekar, CA Brijesh, Aditya Mahadevia and Krishna Gambhir. They were instructed by advocates Rashmi Singh and Karan Khiani..[Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.