JUDGMENT Fletcher, J. - This is a suit by Mr. Sydney Lawrence trading as Lawrence and Mayo as manufacturing opticians in London, Calcutta, Bombay and elsewhere to restrain the Defendant who is a rival optician in Calcutta from infringing the copyright of the Plaintiff's catalogue. The Defendant was formerly in the employ of the Plaintiff and started business on his own account in 1902. During last year, the Defendant published a catalogue in regard to which the Plaintiff has complained in this action. 2. The Defendant's catalogue is a small book consisting of 43 pages or thereabouts and what the Plaintiff complains of are the illustrations on pp. 3, 6, 11, 14, 16, 17, 21, 22, 29, 35, 37, 38, 40 and 41 of that catalogue. This is a very substantial portion of the catalogue. 3. The defences taken to this suit are as follows :-- That Mr. Lawrence is not the proprietor of the copyright in the catalogue. 4. That the matter stands in this way. 5. The Plaintiff, as is usual with retailers, obtains from the wholesale manufacturers electro-type blocks of goods manufactured by them and these are published by the Plaintiff in his catalogue. That comprises about 70 per cent, of the Plaintiff's catalogue. 6. The remaining portion of the Plaintiff's catalogue is that in which he claims the copyright in. The electro-type blocks for these illustrations (other than the illustrations which have been copied by the Defendant into pp. 5 and 6 of his catalogue) were obtained in the manner following. The Plaintiff was a friend of an old gentleman named Mr. Short who carried on business under the name and style of Short and Mason. Some years ago, when the Plaintiff was dealing with Short and Mason, he caused to be manufactured on his own account and at his own expense certain wooden blocks of Instruments manufactured by Short and Mason and supplied to him, Each and every of these instruments has engraved thereon the name of Lawrence and Mayo. 7. The Plaintiff further says that he authorised Mr. Short to use the blocks for the purposes of their wholesale price lists and on the condition that their use would be limited to that. 8. Now, the successors of Short and Mason have not been able to prove that during Mr. 7. The Plaintiff further says that he authorised Mr. Short to use the blocks for the purposes of their wholesale price lists and on the condition that their use would be limited to that. 8. Now, the successors of Short and Mason have not been able to prove that during Mr. Short's life-time, except in two isolated instances, any illustrations of these blocks appeared in any of their retail customer's books other than Lawrence and Mayo's. I think that Mr. Lawrence's story is correct that the permission given to Short and Mason was to publish these illustrations in their wholesale price lists and in those only. To hold that the license given to Messrs. Short and Mason was wider than this, would mean that the Plaintiff had undertaken the expense of having these electro type blocks made for the use of all the retail customers of Messrs. Short and Mason, who might be his rivals in trade. I, therefore, hold that the license given to Messrs. Short and Mason was a license to use the electrotype blocks for the very use of their wholesale catalogue only. Then, it is said on behalf of the Defendant that, having regard to the fact that the copyright in 70 per cent. of the illustrations of the Plaintiff's catalogue is the property of other persons, the Plaintiff cannot have a copyright in the remaining portion. This contention is, in my opinion, not well-founded : simply because the copyright in some of the illustrations in the Plaintiff's catalogue is vested in some other person or persons does not prevent the Plaintiff from suing to restrain an infringement of such of the illustrations as he has the copyright in : The point really seems to be covered by the decision of Chitty, L. J., in Lamb v. Evans (1892) 3 Ch. 462. 9. Then it is said that this catalogues of the Plaintiff are a fraud on the public. Now, it is clear from what has been pointed out by Mr. Garth that the catalogues of the Plaintiff do contain statements which are not in every case strictly accurate. But these I think on the whole may be taken to be in the nature of puffing statements. It is to be noticed that no case of fraud on the public was raised in the written statement. Garth that the catalogues of the Plaintiff do contain statements which are not in every case strictly accurate. But these I think on the whole may be taken to be in the nature of puffing statements. It is to be noticed that no case of fraud on the public was raised in the written statement. The case in the Court of Session cited at p. 81 of Copinger on the Law of Copyright seems to me to be material on this point. The note in question says that " it was no answer to an action to prevent infringement of the copyright in a book that its author had in some incidental cases made such mistakes as might involve him in a penalty under the Copy-right & Designs Act, and that as the Respondent's averments did not raise the case of a book calculated to make money by misrepresentation or which had something connected with its publication against public morals, these averments were irrelevant." But. even if the Defendant is entitled to raise this defence now, such defence ought only to succeed on a very strong case being made out. The number of cases to which Mr. Garth has been able to call my attention amounts to a very few indeed and none of them related to the illustrations which the (1) (1892) 3 Ch. 462. Plaintiff says the Defendant has infringed the copyright. It would not be right, simply because Mr. Lawrence, in a few isolated instances, overstated in his catalogue the merits of his instruments or led the public to believe that he is the actual maker of some of them, that this suit should fail solely on that ground. Then, it is said that Mr. Lawrence is not now dealing with Short and Mason and that it would not be right to allow him to restrain the Defendant who is dealing with that firm from using these illustrations. The evidence is that the business relations between Short and Mason and the Plaintiff only terminated recently and although the amount of business done by the Plaintiff with Short and Mason in recent year is not what it used to be in former times, no case is made out that Mr, Lawrence is advertising these instruments of Short and Mason without having any of them in stock. If any such case can be made out, no doubt Short and Mason would take care to protect themselves. 10. There remains to be dealt with the illustrations on pp. 3 and 6 of the Defendant's catalogue. The Defendant admits that the illustrations on both of these pages were taken from the Plaintiff's catalogue. The Defendant says that he gave an undertaking not to publish these but that, in my opinion, is not sufficient; he ought in the commencement of this suit to have offered to have consented to an injunction with regard to these illustrations. I think the Plaintiff is entitled to succeed in the present suit. The Defendant must be ordered to deliver up to the Plaintiff all copies of his catalogue which now remain in his possession and must also be restrained by injunction from continuing or repeating any infringement of the Plaintiff's catalogue. The Defendant must pay the costs of this suit on scale No. 2.