Subhash Arora v. Rohit Bhatia

$~28 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ FAO(OS) 83/2016 SUBHASH ARORA ..... Appellant Through :

Mr S. K. Bansal with Mr Ajay Amitabh Suman and Mr Pankaj Kumar versus ROHIT BHATIA ..... Respondent Through :

Mr Ashok Mittal with Mr Lalit Vohra

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

O R D E R

% 16.03.2016 CAV 253/2016 The learned counsel for the respondent/ caveator is present. The caveat stands discharged.

CM 9436/2016 Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

FAO(OS) 83/2016 & CM 9433-9435/2016 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The dispute is with regard to the design of a water jug. Mr Bansal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, states that he has instances of prior publication and prior registered design which he could not place before the learned Single Judge when the matter was heard and the impugned order was passed. We permit Mr Bansal to place these instances before the learned Single Judge along with an application for the same. The matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge who may, after examining the material placed by Mr Bansal on behalf of the defendant/ appellant, vary the order already passed.

The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant would be permitted to take the plea that the features are functional in nature and are not design elements. The learned counsel for the respondent shall be at liberty to controvert the same. This direction is being given because we have not been shown the finding on this aspect of the matter in the impugned judgment.

The application, which is to be filed by Mr Bansal, would be decided in accordance with law on merits. We are making it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

The appeal stands disposed of.

Dasti.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J MARCH 16, 2016 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J SR