ORDER : M. Sundar, J. 1. The sole plaintiff in the main suit is the lone applicant in this application. Defendants 1 and 2 in the main suit are respondents 1 and 2 respectively in this application. Parties in this application are referred to by their respective ranks in the main suit for the sake of convenience and clarity. 2. The factual matrix that unfurls from a perusal of the averments in the plaint and the affidavit filed in support of the instant application in a nutshell is as follows: 2.1 Plaintiff is engaged in the business of selling sesame oil under the brand name 'Idhayam'. 2.2 Plaintiff exports sesame oil both in its regular form as well as refined form. 2.3 Plaintiff has obtained registration of Trade Mark, but that is not subject matter of the main suit or this application. 2.4 Subject matter of the main suit and the instant application pertain to a design registration obtained by the plaintiff for the bottles in which it markets it's products. 2.5 To be noted, the design registration certificate is dated 11.01.1990 and the design' number is 161783 in class 3 under Designs Act, 1911 vide Design Registration Certificate dated 18.06.1990 (this is hereinafter referred to as 'suit design' for the sake of brevity, clarity and convenience). 2.6 Besides suit design, the main suit and the instant application complain of passing off qua colour scheme in their label. 3. As would be evident from the factual matrix in a nutshell gathered from pleadings and set out supra, plaintiff is complaining of infringement of suit design and colour scheme in it's label. 4. In this regard, there is no dispute before me that plaintiff's label which is subject matter of the main suit and this application regarding which there is a passing off complaint has not been filed as a plaint document. It has not been filed as part of the typed set of papers in the instant application also. Only the alleged offending labels of the defendants have been filed as part of the typed set of papers in the instant application. 5. Therefore this leaves us with the suit design. 6. As set out supra, suit design is design No. 161783, dated 11.01.1990 in class 3 under Designs Act, 1911. Photocopy of this design registration certificate has been placed before me. 5. Therefore this leaves us with the suit design. 6. As set out supra, suit design is design No. 161783, dated 11.01.1990 in class 3 under Designs Act, 1911. Photocopy of this design registration certificate has been placed before me. A perusal of this design registration certificate reveals that this design registration certificate has been issued by the Patent Office under the Designs Act, 1911, as mentioned supra. 7. The Design Registration Certificate for the suit design clearly states that the Copy Right in the design will subsist for five years from the date of registration and may under the terms of the Act and the rules be extended for two further periods of five years each. Therefore the design registration certificate placed before me is valid up to 11.01.1995. Further renewals have not been placed before me. To be noted, this design registration is valid upto 11.01.1995. Even if a further renewal had been made, the same should have been made on or before 11.01.1995. Second subsequent renewal, if any, also should have been made on or before 11.01.2000 and the second registration utmost would have been valid only till 2005. 8. The above position emerges clearly from the relevant provision under the Designs Act, 1911, i.e., Section 47. I deem it appropriate to extract Section 47 of the Designs Act, 1911, which reads as follows: "Section 47. Copyright on registration-. (1) When a design is registered, the registered proprietor of the design shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, have copyright in the design during five years from the date of registration. (2) If before the expiration of the said five years application for the extension of the period of copyright is made to the Controller in the prescribed manner, the Controller shall, on payment of the prescribed fee, extend the period of copyright for a second period of five years from the expiration of the original period of five years. (2) If before the expiration of the said five years application for the extension of the period of copyright is made to the Controller in the prescribed manner, the Controller shall, on payment of the prescribed fee, extend the period of copyright for a second period of five years from the expiration of the original period of five years. (3) If before the expiration of such second period of five years application for the extension of the period of copyright is made to the Controller in the prescribed manner, the Controller may, subject to any rules under this act, on payment of the prescribed fee, extend the period of copyright for a third period of five years from the expiration of the second period of five years." (underlining made by me to supply emphasis and highlight) 9. To be noted, Designs Act, 1911, has been repealed and re-enacted vide the Designs Act, 2000, which came into force on and from 11.05.2001. Equivalent provision under the new Designs Act i.e., the Designs Act, 2000 is Section 11 and the same reads as follows: "11. Copyright on registration.-(1) When a design is registered, the registered proprietor of the design shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, have copyright in the design during five years from the date of registration. (2) If before the expiration of the said ten years, application for the extension of the period of copyright is made to the Controller in the prescribed manner, the Controller shall, on payment of the prescribed fee, extend the period of copyright for a second period of five years from the expiration of the original period of ten years." (underlining made by me to supply emphasis and highlight) 10. Further to be noted, there is no change in the principle with regard to the validity of the period of design registration certificate and limiting the renewal to 10 years. The principles are the same. In other words, total life span/validity of a Design registration is limited to 15 years from the date of registration after which it is in public domain and the registrant losses his monopoly. Once registrant loses his monopoly he cannot complain of infringement. Anyone is free to use the design. Most important aspect of the statutory scheme is that the registrant should apply for renewal within the validity period i.e., when registration is subsisting. Once registrant loses his monopoly he cannot complain of infringement. Anyone is free to use the design. Most important aspect of the statutory scheme is that the registrant should apply for renewal within the validity period i.e., when registration is subsisting. This is a statutory safety valve to ensure that no registrant gets monopoly for more than 15 years from the actual date of first registration. This is being set out only to make this order as comprehensive as possible. 11. Under the Designs Act, in the absence of a valid design registration, the plaintiff cannot complain of piracy of its registered design. In other words, vide Section 22 of the Designs Act 2000 (Section 53 of the old Act), there can be a complaint of piracy of registered design only during the existence of copyright in any design. 12. In the instant case, this suit itself has been presented only on 21.12.2017 and it has been filed under Section 22 of the Designs Act, obviously Designs Act, 2000. I also deem it appropriate to extract Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000 and Section 53 of the Designs Act, 1911 pertaining to piracy, which read as follows: "22. Piracy of registered design. (1) During the existence of copyright in any design it shall not be lawful for any person- (a) for the purpose of sale to apply or cause to be applied to any article in any class of articles in which the design is registered, the design or any fraudulent or obvious imitation thereof, except with the license or written consent of the registered proprietor, or to do anything with a view to enable the design to be so applied; or (aa) to import for the purposes of sale, without the consent of the registered proprietor, any article belonging to the class in which the design has been registered, and having applied to it the design or any fraudulent or obvious imitation thereof; or (b) knowing that the design or any fraudulent or obvious imitation thereof has been applied to any article in any class of articles in which the design is registered without the consent of the registered proprietor, to publish or expose or cause to be published or exposed for sale that article. (2) If any person acts in contravention of this section, he shall be liable for every contravention- (a) to pay to the registered proprietor of the design a sum not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees recoverable as a contract debt, or (b) if the proprietor elects to bring a suit for the recovery of damages for any such contravention, and for an injunction against the repetition thereof, to pay such damages as may be awarded and to be restrained by injunction accordingly; Provided that the total sum recoverable in respect of any one design under clause (a) shall not exceed fifty thousand rupees. Provided further that no suit or any other proceeding for relief under this sub-section shall be instituted in any Court below the Court of District Judge. (3) In any suit or any other proceeding for relief under sub-section (2), every ground on which the registration of a design may be cancelled under Section 19 shall be available as a ground of defence. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the second provision to sub-section (2), where any ground on which the registration of a design may be cancelled under Section 19 has been availed of as a ground of defence and sub-section (3) in any suit or other proceeding for relief under sub-section (2), the suit or such other proceeding shall be transferred by the Court, in which the suit or such other proceeding, is pending, to the High Court for decision. (5) When the Court makes a decree in a suit under sub-section (2), it shall send a copy of the decree to the Controller, who shall cause an entry thereof to be made in the register of designs. "53. Piracy of registered design. (5) When the Court makes a decree in a suit under sub-section (2), it shall send a copy of the decree to the Controller, who shall cause an entry thereof to be made in the register of designs. "53. Piracy of registered design. (1) During the existence of copyright in any design it shall not be lawful for any person- (a) for the purpose of sale to apply or cause to be applied to any article in any class of goods in which the design is registered the design or any fraudulent or obvious imitation thereof, except with the license or written consent of the registered proprietor, or to do anything with a view to enable the design to be so applied; or (aa) to import for the purposes of sale, without the consent of the registered proprietor, any article belonging to the class in which the design has been registered, and having applied to it the design or any fraudulent or obvious imitation thereof; or (b) knowing that the design or any fraudulent or obvious imitation thereof has been applied to any article in any class of goods in which the design is registered without the consent of the registered proprietor, to publish or expose or cause to be published or exposed for sale that article. (2) If any person acts in contravention of this section, he shall be liable for every contravention- (a) to pay to the registered proprietor of the design a sum not exceeding five hundred rupees recoverable as a contract debt, or (b) if the proprietor elects to bring a suit for the recovery of damages for any such contravention, and for an injunction against the repetition thereof, to pay such damages as may be awarded and to be restrained by injunction accordingly; Provided that the total sum recoverable in respect of any one design under clause (a) shall not exceed one thousand rupees. (3) When the Court makes a decree in a suit under sub-section (2), it shall send a copy of the decree to the Controller, who shall cause an entry thereof to be made in the register of designs." (underlining done by me to supply emphasis and highlight) 13. From the narrative supra, it follows as a indisputable sequitur that the complaint of piracy/infringement of suit design must necessarily fail. From the narrative supra, it follows as a indisputable sequitur that the complaint of piracy/infringement of suit design must necessarily fail. Therefore this application seeking interim injunction restraining the defendants qua suit design deserves to be dismissed. I do so. 14. With regard to the other limb of the prayer herein pertaining to colour scheme in plaintiff's label, as alluded to supra, a copy of the plaintiff's label on the basis of which passing off complaint is predicated, has not been placed before me either as a suit document or as part of typed set of papers in the instant application. Therefore, there is no scope for going into the same and that also cannot but fail. In other words, this application deserves to be dismissed. 15. However Mr. M. Musthafakhan, learned counsel on record for plaintiff submits that he may be permitted to file the plaintiff's label regarding which passing off qua colour scheme complaint has been made and takeout a separate application. Considering that this is an interlocutory application and that the main suit is still in seizing of this Commercial Division, I grant leave to the plaintiff to takeout a separate application along with plaintiff's label in which colour scheme violation is alleged, if so advised. If the plaintiff chooses to do so, this order of dismissal will not come in the way and this order of dismissal will not be an impediment.