JUDGMENT Per S.R. SINGHARAVELU, J. This application is to vacate the ad-interim injunction granted ex parte in favour of the plaintiff on 29.3.2006 in O.A. No. 284 of 2006 in this suit. 2. The plaintiff is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act and is one of the leading manufacturers of 2 and 3 wheeler tyres in India from 1982 onwards. It has got its own design for the same. The specific trade pattern is called DRAGON tyre. The plaintiff is having a good market by manufacturing the product with the said tread pattern. 3. Now that it comes to the knowledge of the plaintiff that the respondent is also following the same tread pattern of plaintiff’s DRAGON tyre for its product. Once a design is registered, the plaintiff is entitled to have the same for a period often years and on the basis of which ex parte interim injunction was granted on 29.3.2006 in favour of the plaintiff, that is sought to be vacated by the defendant who filed this application. 4. The plaintiff has applied to the Controller of Designs at Calcutta for registration of the tread pattern as a design under the Designs Act 16 of 2000 and the same was registered on 7.6.2005 and a certificate of registration was issued on 9.12.2005. 5. Although the applicant/defendant would now contend that the tread pattern adopted by the plaintiff is not a new one, the defendant in his letter dated 25.7.2005 was said to have admitted that the tread pattern of the plaintiff’s tyres is slightly a new thinking. 6. The definition of a design under Section 2(d) of the Act would show that a design is only a configuration, shape or other features. It is not necessary that the entire product should be new. It is the shape, configuration, pattern, ornament, lines or a combination of these factors that should be a new one. In this connection, there is no other model produced before me in showing that the combination of the lines configuration and pattern adopted for tread pattern of plaintiff has been adopted by some other tyre company. An endeavour was made in showing the similarity between the plaintiff’s tread pattern and Dunlop Tyre. But I find striking variation and dissimilarity in between the two. An endeavour was made in showing the similarity between the plaintiff’s tread pattern and Dunlop Tyre. But I find striking variation and dissimilarity in between the two. In the absence of similar pattern it has to be found that there is some unique feature in the plaintiff’s tread pattern. Of course the plaintiff’s act of registration under the Design Act may not confer a right thereon. But to say that there was no new feature in the plaintiffs pattern cannot be accepted. It cannot also be countenanced that all tyres have buttons and that there is nothing in the shape of the button. It is not only the size of the button but also the placement of them to ultimately form a design is something unique that the plaintiff had. Again to say that it is only surface pattern that was registered and not tread pattern cannot be accepted. All surfaces of tyres will have a pattern and that pattern depends not only upon the size of the pattern but also upon its configuration or the process of placement in order to make out a particular phase to the surface. Analogously a of human mouth will contain teeth but it is upon the configuration of teeth, individuals vary. Likewise, all persons are having thumbs but their impressions make the difference. Therefore to say that surface pattern alone is registered and that the registration is quite new lend support to the applicant’s/defendant’s cases and so long as that is a particular pattern or design adopted by the plaintiff company in manufacturing the particular tyre. 7. It was held in 1999(4) Raj 419 Division Bench as follows: “It is not necessary to break the articles down into integers for descriptive purpose but in the ultimate result it is the article as a totality that must be compared and contrasted with the features of a shape and configuration shown in the totality observable from the representation of the design as registered”. 8. 8. It has also been held in M.R.F. Limited v. Metro Tyres Limited 1990 PTC 101 at page 122 as follows: “It may be stated that when a purchaser goes to purchase a scooter tyre manufactured by the plaintiff, if NYLOGRIP scooter tyre is not available and METRO scooter tyre is being available in the shop, quite likely, the shopkeepers may point out the tread pattern in that tyre manufactured by the defendant and the purchaser may purchase the same having regard to the similarity of the tread pattern irrespective of the manufacturers. Similarity of the tread pattern may also raise a presumption of common origin or close business association between MRF and METRO as contended on behalf of the plaintiff. In such circumstances it may be stated that the tread patterns are not without significance.....It is also to be pointed out, having regard to the fact that the defendant has manufactured the scooter tyres having similar tread pattern long after the manufacture by the plaintiff, it cannot be contended by the defendant that the plaintiff has no cause of action or they cannot claim any interim injunction pending disposal of the suit” 9. Merely because the registration is recent by itself may not be a ground for refusing injunction as observed in 2000 (2) Raj. 442 . 10. The need for production of copyrights in the commercial world was well explained in 1999 (2) Raj 274 . 11. The only test in infringement of designs and passing off is the sameness of the features in the goods of plaintiff and defendants that has been expressed in AIR 1968 Cal. 109 at page 111, which is as follows: “The definition itself lays emphasis on the fact that the sameness of the features is to be decided by the eye, that is by seeing the two and getting a total synoptic view of the same. The sameness of features do not necessarily mean that the two designs must be identical on all points and differ on no point”. 12. The learned counsel for the applicant/defendant submitted that there are lots of differences in between the tyres of the plaintiff and defendant and based upon which no infringement of design could be alleged by the plaintiff. Various decisions in an action for an infringement was mentioned in AIR 2000 Mad. 497 . 12. The learned counsel for the applicant/defendant submitted that there are lots of differences in between the tyres of the plaintiff and defendant and based upon which no infringement of design could be alleged by the plaintiff. Various decisions in an action for an infringement was mentioned in AIR 2000 Mad. 497 . It has been highlighted that whatever differences in between the original and infringed article may be, it is only the overall substantial similarity that would be taken into consideration and not obscure and minute dissimilarity found by Microscopic Examination. 13. Learned counsel for the applicant/defendant further submitted that the law relating to the infringement of trade mark or passing off is entirely different from that of action for piracy under the Designs Act. However, the infringement of trademark, even if it is considered, it should be in the light of what an ordinary or common man with imperfect knowledge (sic) to look at the two objects. Whatever it is, when striking similarity is there, then there is an infringement. Despite dissimilarity, what we are concerned about is striking similarities, and I am able to find that such striking similarity in this case. Therefore, injunction is made absolute and the vacate stay application is dismissed.