JUDGMENT 1. THIS is a motion for cancellation of the respondent's design on ceiling fans, bearing registered No 161219 dated 25th July 1989 erroneously mentioned as No. 161129 in the prayer portion. 2. THE application is made under the Designs Act of 1911. Large portions of the original Act. Being the Patents and Designs Act, 1911 were subsequently deleted so as to bring about a separate legislation for Patents, which is the Patents Act, 1970. The ground of cancellation of respondents design are prior registration and publication of the substantially similar design of the petitioner, both being, allegedly the same in their broad and essential aspects. 3. THE papers before me contain various copy photographs (quite unclear) of the designs of which registrations were obtained by petitioner in or about 1987. THE respondent's registration is of 1989. However, neither a picture, nor a description of a design can ever substitute the substance itself containing the design. I have, therefore, directed the fan head, the blade and the canopy of the petitioner's prototype fan to be preserved as material Exhibits I and III and the fan head, blade cad canopy of the respondent's prototype fan to be preserved similarly as material Exhibits II and IV. 4. THE case was, with respect, excellently argued on both sides Mr. Samaresh Chakraborty appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. Biswarup Gupta for the respondents. I have had the advantage of the citation of many authorities and the best possible assistance that can be had from the Bar. The cancellation is to be had, if at all, under Section 51A of the Designs Act of 1911. It need not be reproduced, and it suffices to state that the High Court can at any time after its registration, cancel, upon a petition, of any person interested, a design, which has either been previously registered in India or has been published there or in cases where the design is neither new nor original. 5. It need not be reproduced, and it suffices to state that the High Court can at any time after its registration, cancel, upon a petition, of any person interested, a design, which has either been previously registered in India or has been published there or in cases where the design is neither new nor original. 5. ALTHOUGH the section in express words, only states about the presentation of the cancellation petition, and does not go on to state with the High Court is to do upon receiving it, yet that is only an unhappy drafting of legislation, and the only purposive way of construction is to imply, by reason of unavoidable necessity, the power of the High Court to disposes of any presented petition in accordance with the law of the land. I do imply such a power. 6. THE parties have been ad interim on this issue that a design can be registered and maintained on the register, if the same is either a completely new invention or even if the same if the same is an original application of what was already in existence prior to the registration. The case of the reproduction of the Westminster Abbey on spoon handles, reported in 52 R.P.C. page 358 was referred to by Mr. Gupta. He said on that case that though Westminster Abbey had been in existence for a long time past, yet the reputation of the same on a spoon handle was an original application of something already in existence and thus a registration of design could be had therefor. 7. SINCE there is no application for cancellation of the petitioner's design, I need not dwell upon the nice question, whether the petitioner's fan design is registrable as a complete novelty or as an original application in a new field of ideas already in existence. The registration of the petitioner's design must be taken as good, and a substantial copy of the same cannot be saved, without challenging the said design as being originally unregisterable. 8. THE point at issue between the petitioner and the respondent put simply is this: does the fan of the respondent as designed resemble so closely the fan of the petitioner that it can be said to come within mischief of the section 51A of the Design Act? 8. THE point at issue between the petitioner and the respondent put simply is this: does the fan of the respondent as designed resemble so closely the fan of the petitioner that it can be said to come within mischief of the section 51A of the Design Act? Can it be said that the design of the respondent's fan has already been registered in India? Can it be said that the design of the respondent's fan has already been published in India? To come within the ambit of the Section, it is not necessary that the prior registration or the prior publication must be identical to the design that is impugned. There have been many authorities over many past decades, and it is the law that the Court is to look for substantial identity is these matters. In what manner the Court must look for this has also been the subject of many decisions. 9. THE primary point is, that in comparing design, the visual impact of the two competing designs is all important. It is upon the eye that the judge in these matters must principally really and the impression that the mind receives through the visual sensation. 10. HOW the two designs are to be looked at, for similarity, is suggested in a case reported in 50 LTR 420 (Grafton v. Watson) Mr. Justice Chitty said there as follows: - "The test is no merely to look at the two designs side by side, though no doubt that is one element of comparison in coming to a conclusion, but it is not the whole test. I think, the designs should be looked together, but then consideration should be given to what would be the effect supposing that they were seen, at different times, or supposing they were looked at a little distance off". In my opinion, one need not always necessarily compare in all ways suggested above, but having in mind a person knowledgeable in the trade, or a buyer interested in design, one or all of the above different ways of comparison might be found to be helpful in the facts and circumstances of a particular case. 11. BEFORE going on to the subsequent authorities, it is, I think an appropriate place to describe, as far as words can accomplish that purpose, the two designs of the petitioner and the respondent. 12. 11. BEFORE going on to the subsequent authorities, it is, I think an appropriate place to describe, as far as words can accomplish that purpose, the two designs of the petitioner and the respondent. 12. THE fan head of the petitioner contains a central round blank portion, with 18 ray- like ribs issuing therefore up to the top edge of the fan head. THE canopy of the petitioner's fan contains 12 vertical slender lines equispaced around the surface. THE bottom of the canopy is wavy. THE fan blade of the petitioner contains four scallops at the far short edge, and the joining piece of the blade is coloured golden with three scallops. It is important, however, to note that in matters of design, colour has been held in England to be kept out of consideration, though with respect, I have serious reservations in that matter. The respondents' fan head contains a central round blank portion of almost the same area as the petitioner's. There are 9 radial ribs issuing from the said central portion and going to the top of the fan blade edge. There is, however, a circular ridge on the bottom edge of the fan head which cuts the ribs through. The respondent's canopy contains vertical slender lines, again 9 in number. The bottom of the canopy is wavy, where again there is a central line cutting the vertical lines roughly at a 2/3rd 1/3rd distance. The fan blade of the respondent is absolutely ordinary. 13. IT is by looking at the fans and also these components that I must come to the conclusion whether the respondent's design had already prior to 1989 been registered or published by the petitioner. The authorities in this regard laying down how one is to look for these similarities I shall discuss presently. 14. THE word "design" has been similarity defined in the Indian Act as in England, (see THEir Registered Design Act, 1949, S. 1(3); and section 2(5) of our Act defines "design" as only the features of shape, configuration, pattern or ornament. I have serious, reservation, about pattern not including a colour pattern, but the point is not too important here, nor has it been argued much. By a combined effect of section 2(2) and 2(5), the said design is to be applied by an industrial process to an article of manufacture. 15. I have serious, reservation, about pattern not including a colour pattern, but the point is not too important here, nor has it been argued much. By a combined effect of section 2(2) and 2(5), the said design is to be applied by an industrial process to an article of manufacture. 15. IN understanding what is shape and configuration as opposed to a pattern or ornament, a passage from a judgment of Mr. Justice Luxmoore in Kestos Lt's (1936) 53 R. P. C. 139 at 152) has often been quoted. The question is also to be found in one of the cases relied upon by Mr. Chakraborty being the Chair case reported in 87 R.P.C. 599 at 621. The said passage is as follows: "Shape and configuration are for all practical purposes considered as synonymous (see Bayer's Design, ubi supra, at page 80). Each signifies something in three dimension; the form in which the article itself is fashioned. 'Pattern' and 'ornament' can, I think, in the majority of cases be treated as practically synonymous. It is something which is placed on article for its decoration. It is substantially in two as opposed to three dimensions. An article can exist without any pattern or ornament upon it, whereas it can have no existence at all apart from its shape or configuration. As Lindley, LJ. Said to Re Clarke's Registered Design (1896) 13 R.P.C. 351, 'a design applicable to a think for its shape can only be applied to a think by making it in that shape'. The application may according to the statutory definition be by any industrial process and it must be such that in the finished article it will appeal to the eye, and is to be judged solely by the eye. The design must be new or original." 16. THE distinction between shape and configuration on the one hand, and pattern, on the other hand, arises in this case because Mr. Gupta has relied upon the manner in which the monopoly has been claimed in the design of the petitioner. In all the registration the petitioner has claimed that the novelty resides in the shape and configuration of the designed article as illustrated. Surface pattern or ornamentation is not mentioned in the petitioner's claim. Mr. Gupta has emphasised that it is possible for a party to claim novelty only in a part of the design as illustrated. Mr. In all the registration the petitioner has claimed that the novelty resides in the shape and configuration of the designed article as illustrated. Surface pattern or ornamentation is not mentioned in the petitioner's claim. Mr. Gupta has emphasised that it is possible for a party to claim novelty only in a part of the design as illustrated. Mr. Gupta thus submitted that there is nothing in the shape or configuration of the illustrated fan of the petitioner or the illustrated fan parts relied upon by the petitioner which can be said to have been offended specially by the respondent's design. Mr. Gupta pointed out that in contrast, the respondent has claimed their novelty to reside in the surface pattern and ornamentation of the ceiling fan. Thus, it is important to resolve at this stage what is the effect of the claim of novelty as made by the petitioner in the registered designs. To my mind, it is important to understand that the same novel design might carry with it novelty not only with regard to shape or configuration, or pattern, or ornamentation but might combine any two or even more of these elements. A particular design which is novel in shape can at the same time be novel as to ornamentation also. It is more helpful, therefore, to understand the basic concepts of shape, configuration, pattern and ornamentation rather than to try and define these, for such simple concepts are notoriously elusive of exact definition. 17. WE understand by shape the spherical nature of a sphere. It is easier to understand the meaning of the word "shape" by an example like this, than to try to get an exact definition of it. Similarly, if a sphere is placed on top of a cone and both are placed on top of a cube, we have a configuration of three shapes. The same three shapes can be arranged in a different configuration is, say, the cone is inverted and placed at the bottom and then the cube and the sphere are side by side placed on top of it. In deciding the novelty of a configuration, the way of arrangement is more important than what is arranged. 18. THE pattern of or an article would, I respectfully agree, rather be a two dimensional novelty of design than a three dimensional one. In deciding the novelty of a configuration, the way of arrangement is more important than what is arranged. 18. THE pattern of or an article would, I respectfully agree, rather be a two dimensional novelty of design than a three dimensional one. Ornamentation is a particular type of a pattern and this also is more to be understood in the two dimensional sense that there. A pattern is something more central than an ornament, which give the impression; of a fringe design. Hearts and spades of cards can well be cut out into patterns, and these can be made to have ornaments on the lines or edges, as can be seen on many cards actually. Now, what is the design of petitioner's fan head? Is it in three dimensions or is it in two. The 18-rib sun-ray pattern on the petitioner's fan head is on doubt, speaking in exact terms, a three dimensional design, because if the fan head is made totally smooth, the entire design will disappear. Again the said design does present two- dimensional characteristics because the percentage of relief on the fan head is minimal and the design is more two dimensional, than three if, one can be permitted to use such an unscientific expression. But on such unscientific basis, the petitioner's claim to design cannot be rendered meaningless altogether. 19. THE claim to monopoly of the petitioner would thus lose all significance whatsoever if their claim to shape and configuration were limited to the starkly three- dimensional designs only. In such a case, in my opinion, the claim is to be read in a manner meaningful, rather than in a manner destructive of meaning. If any novelty is there in the petitioner' fan design then such novelty resides in the 18 radial ribs on the fan head and in the 12 vertical matching ribs on the fan canopy, not to mention of their claim to novelty as claiming novelty in shape and configuration only, then it would have to be held that they have registered a design which was no design at all. I am not minded so to rob the registration of the petitioner of all content whatsoever. THE petitioner's is a design where the fan head and the canopy are so shaped as to produce a relief pattern on the surface. 20. I am not minded so to rob the registration of the petitioner of all content whatsoever. THE petitioner's is a design where the fan head and the canopy are so shaped as to produce a relief pattern on the surface. 20. THE aforesaid Chair case is a decision of the Court of Appeal reported in 87 R.P.C. 599 and this contains passages which would go to support the above conclusion of mine. At page 621 it was said as follows (ornamentation being also shape): "THE mere fact that these features may have been thought or intended to add decorative or ornamental value to the Madrigal chair, in our judgment, renders them no less features of its shape or configuration. THEse were not mere features of two- dimensional ornament or decoration applied to it at a later stage. If and so far as they may be said to embody a pattern or ornament, this has been produced by the shaping and configuration of the plastic of the chair in the course of its creation." The Court of Appeal in that judgment was concerned with the two competing designs of Chairs, containing back to front lines (grooves or slits) as opposed to side to side lines on the sitting surface, and the back rest containing vertical lines as opposed to horizontal ones. To my mind, the above passage is all the more applicable in the facts of this case, although as a reverse instance, because the shape of the fan head and the canopy both of the petitioner and of the respondent were designed at the time of their manufacture itself; and not with later imprints. 21. I am, therefore, of opinion that the claim to novelty as made by the petitioner, in the registry, is sufficiently comprehensive so as to include, at least by implication in it, the resulting surface relief pattern that came to be imprinted upon the fan head and the canopy surface by reason of the shaping of the same in the particular industrially process employed by the petitioner. 22. MR. Gupta relied upon the case reported in 52 R.P.C. 358 and referred to me inter alias, page 365 of the Report. On that basis MR. 22. MR. Gupta relied upon the case reported in 52 R.P.C. 358 and referred to me inter alias, page 365 of the Report. On that basis MR. Gupta submitted that if the design is of a discovered nature, and the novelty in the design is of a small degree, in that case even a slight change in the design by a competing party should be construed as sufficiently distinctive so as not to constitute an infringement. The case concerned a thermomenter design and it is more important to my mind to note the principal for which the case was relied upon than to embark upon the detailed facts of that case. Mr. Chakraborty relied upon the case reported in (1910)27 R.P.C. 498 (the case of Dover Ld.) being a decision of the Court of Appeal and he said the design is not the article but the design is imprinted upon it. Thus he submitted that although a pattern of the nature shown on the petitioner's fan head might have existed prior to the registration of the petitioner's design, yet the application of the same upon a fan head was completely original. He emphasized that in the design of fans prior to the petioner's, fan heads had all along smooth and relief pattern upon the fan head was introduced in India for the first time by the petitioner. Mr. Chakraborty relied upon the following passage in the above case from the judgment of Buckly L. J.: (p. 504): 23. WHILE commenting upon the same case in relation to the present facts, Mr. Gupta pointed out that there, a division into 9 panels of the cycle handle in question was found to be sufficiently different from a division into 6 panels, Mr. Gupta said on this basis that in appropriate cases a difference in quality, for if there can be a sufficient difference between 6 and 9 there can be a sufficient difference between 9 and 18 as on the fan heads here of even between 9 and 12 as on the fan canopies. 24. IN my opinion, in these matters, facts of earlier cases are not to be given an over-much importance. They are relevant, but what is more relevant and indeed is the matter to be decided, is the overall impression of substantial identity in essence given by the two competing designs. 24. IN my opinion, in these matters, facts of earlier cases are not to be given an over-much importance. They are relevant, but what is more relevant and indeed is the matter to be decided, is the overall impression of substantial identity in essence given by the two competing designs. Numbers might make all the difference in one case, and might not in another. Mr. Gupta said, would his client's fan head still offend if it had four ribs instead of nine? Thinking in this line is not to be encouraged. I say, look at the two designs, and decide and do not think if a slightly altered design would still continue to offend. For, what effect the slight change will produce, is still to be seen by the eye. Mr. Chakraborty cited a passage of Mr. Justice Farwell from the case of Dunlop Rubber Co., which is the golf balls case, reported in (1913) 48 RPC 268; the passage is at page 281 and is as follows: "Now, in a case where the registered Design is made up of a pattern which has no one striking feature in it, but is appeals to the eye as a whole, it may very well be that another design may be an imitation of it which makes the same appeal to the eye, notwithstanding that there are many difference in the details. It may well be that is so: but I think conversely it is true to say that, if a design has in it a striking feature which catches and holds the eye, and which is the one thing that strikes the eye when one looks at the design, a design which otherwise may be like a registered design but which eliminates striking features or alters it is not recognisable, in such a case it seems to me it is impossible to say that one is an imitation of the other". 25. 37. THIS passage I most respectfully follow, and I think this lays down the most perfect test for beginning to compare two designs for legal purposes. Ask this question; is one an imitation to the other? Does it imitate the most striking feature? Does it seek to imitate the overall impression? 26. MR. 25. 37. THIS passage I most respectfully follow, and I think this lays down the most perfect test for beginning to compare two designs for legal purposes. Ask this question; is one an imitation to the other? Does it imitate the most striking feature? Does it seek to imitate the overall impression? 26. MR. Chakraborty also relied upon the case reported in (1928) 45 RPC 71 (the case of Jones and Attwood Ld.) and placed reliance upon the passages at pages 81 and 82 emphasising that it is enough if similarity in design appears to the eye which is knowledgeable in the trade. The following is a part of a quotation from a judgment of Lord Moulton extracted therefrom the case of Phillips v. Harbro Rubber, (1920) 37 R.P.C. at p. 239: - "It is necessary with regard to the question of infringement, and still more with regard to the question of novelty or originality, that the eye should be that of an instructed person i.e. that he should know what was common trade knowledge and usage in the class of articles to which the design applies". However, as Mr. Gupta rightly pointed out from the above Golf balls case of 48 RPC 268 the evidence of outsiders regarding opinions about similarity or identity of design is not admissible in evidence. Such similarity is to be decided upon by the Judge and the Judge alone. Yet the Judge must think (at least, try) like one experienced in the trade, even thought the evidence of an actual person experienced in trade is ruled out. This rule is paradoxical but sound. In cases upon negligence, Judge has to come again and again to the conclusion as to what is the standard of care of a reasonable man in the particular facts and circumstances, but he cannot take the evidence of a person as to his standard of care even I that person offers himself to go into the box as a prototype of a reasonable man. It is the Judge's job therefore, ultimately to pronounce upon the identity of difference between the two designs and thought any facts might be looked into yet direct opinion and evidence in regard to such identity of difference is totally excluded from reception. It is the Judge's job therefore, ultimately to pronounce upon the identity of difference between the two designs and thought any facts might be looked into yet direct opinion and evidence in regard to such identity of difference is totally excluded from reception. This is what was said in the Golf balls case: (at p. 278): - "In my judgment, evidence of people, however, eminent, however experienced in the game of gold, that they would or would not be misled into thinking the one ball was the other or be confused as to which balls were which, is not admissible at all." 27. THE task, therefore, of comparing the two designs are to be performed by the Court alone, aided to course by all the permissible evidence and all the relevant previously decided judicial authorities. 28. MR. Chakraborty also relied upon the Hot water bag case where the judgment of MR., Justice Lloyd-Jocob reported in (1959) 45 RPC 240 was upheld in the Court of Appel, (1959) RPC 347. MR. Chakraborty pointed out from the said case that the diagonal rib pattern on a hot water bottle was a new and registrable design, and the novelty of the said pattern could be protected by an appropriate action. Mr. Gupta relying upon the same case showed me the following paragraph at page 245 of the report "It is, in my judgment, impossible to hold, even if such height and specing are treated as not susceptible of any variation, that the design in suit is of so comprehensive a character that it embraces every conceivable configuration of the faces of a hot bottle wherein raised portions of prescribed dimensions alternate with hollows of prescribed dimensions. This objection in my opinion fails." 29. THUS, said Mr. Gupta, a radial rib pattern might be as susceptible of variation as the ribs in that case upon hot water bottles. He said that such a variation is there in the respondent's fan and the said variation is sufficient to distinguish the products of the two contesting parties. If any clarification is needed, then it is best to point out that the claim of the petitioner is not that any and every relief pattern on the fan head will infringe their design. They only claim protection against an imitation of their particular design on a fan head in this application. 30. MR. If any clarification is needed, then it is best to point out that the claim of the petitioner is not that any and every relief pattern on the fan head will infringe their design. They only claim protection against an imitation of their particular design on a fan head in this application. 30. MR. Chakraborty relied upon the case reported in 1966 Vol. 83 R.P.C. page 515 (G.A. Harvey and Company (London) Limited v. Secure Fittings Limited) and relied on the following sentence from the Judgment of Lord Avon side delivered in the High Court of Sessions, Scotland :- (p.158) :- "There is no doubt that the design is to be applied to an article. The Judge of the design is the eye and the eye alone and to eye it must appeal. The design to appeal must be noticeable and have some perceptible appearance of an individual character." Mr. Chakraborty particularly relied upon the aforesaid Chair case reported in 1987 RPC 599 and, besides saying from a passage at page 623 (lines 7, 8) that the colour of the article is immaterial and irrelevant in comparing designs, he also said, and this is important, from another passage at page 623 that the state of the art at the time of the registration of the design is relevant. The smallness of the designs, the total absence of such a design at the time it was registered are all relevant factors. The greater the advance over the state of the art made in the design, the greater is the scope for its protection Slade L. J. said: - "Furthermore, in comparing the Sonta Chair with the plaintiff's registered design. We must disregard two other conspicuous features of the two sample chairs, which we see before, us, namely the fact they both are white and made of plastic. Colour and material are irrelevant. They are not part of the registered design. On the other hand, a factor which we have to take into account in assessing the scope of the plaintiff's registered design is the background of the relevant prior art in existence at its priority date. The test for "substantial difference" in cases of alleged infringement is in many respects similar to what would be the test for "substantial novelty" of the alleged infringement compared with the registered design." 31. The test for "substantial difference" in cases of alleged infringement is in many respects similar to what would be the test for "substantial novelty" of the alleged infringement compared with the registered design." 31. THEN His Lordship quoted from Russell-Clarke's book: - "If only small differences separate the registered design from what has gone before then equally small differences between the alleged infringement and the registered design will be held to be sufficient to avoid infringement." 32. THEN His Lordship continued: - "On the other hand, the greater the advance over the prior art in the registered design then in general the greater will be the scope of the protection afforded by the registered design. The above principal has now to be applied to the two designs of the two parties in this case. The two designs are not identical. But in my opinion, they are substantially similar, and identical in their essence. If it is at all a help then it might be remarked that both patterns are instances of what is commonly known as the sun-ray pattern. The said pattern contains a centre and has rays radiating from it. If one wire to look at the two fan-heads with this idea in one's mind, that the petitioner's design with 18 rays represents a bright midday sun and the respondent's design with nine rays represents a mind evening sun, one would find a striking identity between these two. 33. AGAIN principally because of the interrupted rays in the respondent's fan-head, it is quite right that the same looks also like a cart-wheel as Mr. Gupta said, or may be, like an industrial design of a gear or a wheel or something similar to the Bosch mark. But is my opinion the central idea of the design, i.e., a blank round center and thin ray relief's proceedings there from, has been copied. If the relifes were successively enlarging concentric circles, instead of rays, the respondent's design might have been claimed to be different, as Mr. Chakraborty rightly submitted during arguments, by way of an example. It could, perhaps be called a different halo pattern, as opposed to a sun ray pattern. 34. THE above design names are mere aids to thought and none of these aids is finally conclusive of the matter. Chakraborty rightly submitted during arguments, by way of an example. It could, perhaps be called a different halo pattern, as opposed to a sun ray pattern. 34. THE above design names are mere aids to thought and none of these aids is finally conclusive of the matter. If a person interested in the design of a fan looks at these two fan head, in my opinion, he would see in those a substantial sameness of design, and though they are not identical, they are definitely of the same family, and substantially and essentially identical. In the Chair case reported in 1987 RPC the test as by a person interested in the design was approved. At page 625 it was said: "the eyes in question, as we have said, must be the eyes of customer interested in design." 35. THE multiplication of words of ideas, I my opinion, can no further help this matter. It is a question of forming a visual impression of sub-stantial identity in the manner indicated by the above cases, and if any other person wishes to perform the task that I have performed, he will have to look at the material objects themselves for further in this matter. 36. THE canopies of the fans pose far less a problem. THE dissimilarity in design consists only in the band at the middle of the respondent's canopy cutting the dropping ribs into 2/3rd and 1/3rd length approximately. It is not a substantial difference. It is a mere trade variant, which cannot save the impugned design from being cancelled. THE wavy bottom of the two canopies also show an offending similarity. It has also no element of distinction, sufficient or at all, in the fans assembled out of the respondent's fan components, which individually offend the petitioner's designs. On the above basis, I come to the conclusion that the respondents have wrongfully obtained their registration in respect of a fan, the design of which was in substance the same as the design of the petitioner's fan which had been registered two years earlier and continuously published by appreciable sales in the market ever since. There shall accordingly be an order of cancellation as prayed for in prayers (a) and (b) of the petition with the cancelled design No. Reading as 161219 instead of 161129. The petitioner would be entitled to the costs of this application. 37. MR. There shall accordingly be an order of cancellation as prayed for in prayers (a) and (b) of the petition with the cancelled design No. Reading as 161219 instead of 161129. The petitioner would be entitled to the costs of this application. 37. MR. Gupta has prayed for a stay of operation of this order especially in view of the fact that a possible injunction application in an infringement action might be affected by this order to mine. MR. Gupta clients would, even without my saying so, is free to seek such a stay from the Appeal Court if they are so minded, but so far as this Court is concerned, such prayer for stay is refused. The parties and all others concerned will act on a signed Xerox copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking.