Read the following case and answer the questions given at the end : The plaintiff, Polymer India Ltd., is a leading manufacturer and distributor of quality products made using plastic moulding technology. Its products in

Read the following case and answer the questions given at the end : The plaintiff, Polymer India Ltd., is a leading manufacturer and distributor of quality products made using plastic moulding technology. Its products include toys, school furniture and playground equipment. The plaintiff is also the registered proprietor of the trademark 'PLAY' since 25th August, 2005. The plaintiff sued eight defendants namely Playwell Impex Pvt. Ltd., Mayank, Ms. Meenakshi, Pawan, Vishal, Darshan, R.P. Associates and Funko India who are involved in manufacture and distribution of similar products. The plaintiff claimed relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing its copyright, common law rights in designs and passing off of deceptively similar products. An ex parte ad interim injunction was granted to the plaintiff by a Court vide its order dated 7th August, 2015 and the goods of the defendants were seized by the Court Commissioner appointed vide the same order. The plaintiff's contentions are : That the products of plaintiff are unique and conceptualised individually, which involves study of the market, preparation of the drawings, drawing a feasibility report, preparation of a new colour scheme, finalisation of dimensions, etc. That the defendant Playwell Impex Private Ltd. is engaged in the business of manufacture, distribution and sale of toys in collusion with the other defendants including R.P. Associates who was earlier the distributor of plaintiff's products and Darshan, who is an ex-employee of the plaintiff. The defendant Playwell Impex Pvt. Ltd. has launched a range of toys which are identical and deceptively similar to the toys made by the plaintiff and is thereby passing off its goods as those of the plaintiff, infringing the bundle of intellectual property rights of the plaintiff in its products. That the toys manufactured and sold by the defendants under the brand FUNKO are a substantial re-production and colourable imitation of the products of the plaintiff. That there is a clear distinction between an original artistic work and a design derived from it for industrial application on a product. The original artistic work which may be used to industrially produce the designed article would fall within the meaning of artistic work defined under section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and would be entitled to copyright protection as defined under section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000. That the defendants in their written statement have admitted the e-mail of the defendant Darshan to the defendant Playwell Impex Pvt. Ltd. forwarding the brochure of the toys of the plaintiff and therefrom it is evident that the defendant Playwell Impex Pvt. Ltd. is replicating from the brochure of the plaintiff. The defendants' contentions are: That the drawing in which the plaintiff claims a copyright does not constitute a design within the meaning of section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000 and is thus, not capable of being registered under the Act. That the plaintiff has no right to claim protection of design without any registration. That the plaintiff's toys which are being manufactured since the year 1992, are not novel and similar products are available in the market for ages. That the plaintiff's products to which the design has been applied have been reproduced by it, more than 50 times by an industrial process. That the interim injunction granted is not justified, when infringement is not proved. Questions – Is the plaintiff entitled to copyright protection ? Can artistic works related to design be protected under the Copyright Act, 1957?