{"id":5967,"date":"2021-06-09T07:24:40","date_gmt":"2021-06-09T07:24:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/?p=5967"},"modified":"2021-11-30T06:37:33","modified_gmt":"2021-11-30T06:37:33","slug":"design-judgements-made-by-court-in-india","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/design-judgements-made-by-court-in-india\/","title":{"rendered":"Have a Look at Well-known Design Judgements Made by Court in India"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"has-drop-cap\">According\nto the <strong><em>Design Act, 2000<\/em><\/strong>, the word design means only the aspects of\npattern, shape, and configuration, the compositions of colours or lines\navailable on any article, whether 2d or 3d, set out by any industrial means or\nprocess, and doesn\u2019t comprise any mark as described in the <strong><em>Cause (v) of sub-section (1) of\nSection 2 of the Trade &amp; Merchandise Marks Act, 1958<\/em><\/strong>. In this blog,\nwe will understand some of the well-known design judgements made by the honourable\nCourt in India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_65 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-light-blue ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<label for=\"ez-toc-cssicon-toggle-item-6a559e224d3fa\" class=\"ez-toc-cssicon-toggle-label\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/label><input type=\"checkbox\"  id=\"ez-toc-cssicon-toggle-item-6a559e224d3fa\"  aria-label=\"Toggle\" \/><nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/design-judgements-made-by-court-in-india\/#What_are_the_Benefits_Under_Design_Act\" title=\"What\nare the Benefits Under Design Act? \">What\nare the Benefits Under Design Act? <\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/design-judgements-made-by-court-in-india\/#MS_Whirpool_of_India_Ltd_Vs_MS_Videocon_Industries_SUIT_LGD_No_1675_of_2012_%E2%80%93_Design_Judgements\" title=\"M\/S\nWhirpool of India Ltd. Vs. M\/S Videocon Industries SUIT (LGD) No. 1675 of 2012 \u2013\nDesign Judgements\">M\/S\nWhirpool of India Ltd. Vs. M\/S Videocon Industries SUIT (LGD) No. 1675 of 2012 \u2013\nDesign Judgements<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/design-judgements-made-by-court-in-india\/#The_Tamil_Nadu_State_WPNos_1295_1296_of_2012_vs_Sree_Vishnu_Bottles\" title=\"The\nTamil Nadu State W.P.Nos. 1295 &amp; 1296 of 2012 vs Sree Vishnu Bottles\">The\nTamil Nadu State W.P.Nos. 1295 &amp; 1296 of 2012 vs Sree Vishnu Bottles<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/design-judgements-made-by-court-in-india\/#Troikaa_Pharmaceuticals_Ltd_Vs_Pro_Laboratories_Ltd_2008_3glr_2635_%E2%80%93_Design_Judgements\" title=\"Troikaa\nPharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Pro Laboratories Ltd, (2008) 3glr 2635 \u2013 Design\nJudgements\">Troikaa\nPharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Pro Laboratories Ltd, (2008) 3glr 2635 \u2013 Design\nJudgements<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/design-judgements-made-by-court-in-india\/#Urooj_Ahmed_vs_Maya_Appliances_OA_Nos_1097_1096_of_2008_and_Application_No_4695_of_2008_In_CS_No_949_of_2008_Madras_HC_%E2%80%93_Design_Judgements\" title=\"Urooj\nAhmed vs Maya Appliances, O.A. Nos. 1097 &amp; 1096 of 2008 and Application No.\n4695 of 2008 In C.S. No. 949 of 2008, Madras H.C. \u2013 Design Judgements\">Urooj\nAhmed vs Maya Appliances, O.A. Nos. 1097 &amp; 1096 of 2008 and Application No.\n4695 of 2008 In C.S. No. 949 of 2008, Madras H.C. \u2013 Design Judgements<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/design-judgements-made-by-court-in-india\/#MS_S_K_Industries_Vs_Dipak_Ghosh_at_Mana_Da_Trading_201042_Ptc96Del\" title=\"M\/S S K\nIndustries Vs. Dipak Ghosh at Mana Da Trading, 2010(42) Ptc96(Del)\">M\/S S K\nIndustries Vs. Dipak Ghosh at Mana Da Trading, 2010(42) Ptc96(Del)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/design-judgements-made-by-court-in-india\/#Conclusion\" title=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"What_are_the_Benefits_Under_Design_Act\"><\/span>What\nare the Benefits Under Design Act? <span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Following\nare some benefits under Design Act:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>&nbsp;The present exclusive right to the owner;<\/li><li>Increases the commercial value\nof the product;<\/li><li>Safeguard design from a\npotential act of infringement.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"MS_Whirpool_of_India_Ltd_Vs_MS_Videocon_Industries_SUIT_LGD_No_1675_of_2012_%E2%80%93_Design_Judgements\"><\/span>M\/S\nWhirpool of India Ltd. Vs. M\/S Videocon Industries SUIT (LGD) No. 1675 of 2012 \u2013\nDesign Judgements<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>In\na motion of temporary ban before the Bombay High Court, Whirlpool claimed that\nVideocon had infringed its registered design for its washing machine,\npossessing in a shape of a rectangle on one side &amp; a semi-circular shape\nwith a discarded panel for the knobs. The respondent also assured that the\npetitioner had two identical designs &amp; the design in this suit possessed a\nlesser variation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In\nlight of Section 6 (3) &amp; (4), the registered design, the Court held that\nthe design couldn&#8217;t be declined even it lacks originality or already recognised\nby the public. The Court, after disapproving the invalidity claim, examined the\ninfringement issues based on the look. Holding that the similarities were\nessential than any marginal differences, the Court said that there was an\ninfringement of the applicant&#8217;s design. This was undoubtedly one of the\nprolific design judgements from the judicial point of view.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_Tamil_Nadu_State_WPNos_1295_1296_of_2012_vs_Sree_Vishnu_Bottles\"><\/span>The\nTamil Nadu State W.P.Nos. 1295 &amp; 1296 of 2012 vs Sree Vishnu Bottles<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The\napplicants were the two companies in the business of buying empty beer &amp;\npaper from small merchants in Tamil Nadu. The protected bottles were then\nrouted to Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka for the purpose of recycling. The\npetitioners claimed they were concerned in the business for more than thirty\nyears &amp; have required approval to do so. The claim of the applicant that\ntwo government authorities that are Regional Transport Officer &amp; the Local\nInspector of Police dishearten them from carrying out such activity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It was found that some bottles acquire <a href=\"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/design-registration\" class=\"text-primary\"><strong>Design Registration<\/strong><\/a> under the Act by certain distilleries. The imposition agencies argued that such transportation is illegal from the point of view of the Design Act. Actually, the FIR has been filed against the applicants, alleging Section 406 of IPC and Section 22 of the Design Act. The applicants claimed that the proposed agencies were not permitted their vehicle to pass and that no one could be stopped from transporting bottles in such a way without an injunction from a court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The\nHigh Court discarded the petitions by announcing that they were without merit\nand their claim was indistinct; therefore, no blanket order could pass for this\nobjective. Evidently, while making the design judgements, Court considers the\nimpact of the infringement on other section as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Troikaa_Pharmaceuticals_Ltd_Vs_Pro_Laboratories_Ltd_2008_3glr_2635_%E2%80%93_Design_Judgements\"><\/span>Troikaa\nPharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Pro Laboratories Ltd, (2008) 3glr 2635 \u2013 Design\nJudgements<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Though\nthe D shaped design was not novel in common sense, it was actually from the\nviewpoint of law. Although the concerned design was recognised, its application\nto the tablet was innovative, making it entitled to the Design Registration.\nThe tests of understanding the similarity between two designs have to be judged\nby the eye, and each design has to be recognised as an overall with all its\nfeatures, regardless of accordance. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Urooj_Ahmed_vs_Maya_Appliances_OA_Nos_1097_1096_of_2008_and_Application_No_4695_of_2008_In_CS_No_949_of_2008_Madras_HC_%E2%80%93_Design_Judgements\"><\/span>Urooj\nAhmed vs Maya Appliances, O.A. Nos. 1097 &amp; 1096 of 2008 and Application No.\n4695 of 2008 In C.S. No. 949 of 2008, Madras H.C. \u2013 Design Judgements<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Application\nfor a visceral ban prevents defendants from infringing registered design\navailable on the applicant&#8217;s products &amp; for direction to the defendant to\npay reimbursement for damages caused by the candidate. The question was whether\nlitigation for design violation could be filed in the Court within whose\njurisdiction the applicant resides. No provision in the Act of Design\nconcerning authority. Hence, it is clear that litigation should be filed\npursuant to general principles in the Code of Civil Procedure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>But,\nthe Court argued that the litigation for design violation should be held to be\nthe same as the suit for Copyright Infringement in the design. Therefore, the\nprovisions under the Copyright Act (Section 62) would be appropriate to design\nviolation as well. The Court suggested that a suit for the design violation\ncould be filed in the Court in whose control the applicant resides.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"MS_S_K_Industries_Vs_Dipak_Ghosh_at_Mana_Da_Trading_201042_Ptc96Del\"><\/span>M\/S S K\nIndustries Vs. Dipak Ghosh at Mana Da Trading, 2010(42) Ptc96(Del)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Petitioners\nsued the defendant on the basics of design violation concerning the cup in\nwhich jelly was being packed. The applicant alleged that the responsible person\nhad violated the Design Act provisions by using the same design. The Court\nsuggested that the Design Registration for the standard lacks application of\nmind &amp; originality of the design.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The\nshape is broadly identified geometrical shape, and it does not o0bey the\nnovelty in terms of dimensions or shape. While providing a temporary\ninjunction, the Court should consider that the design should be correctly\nregistered, and it should be a certain element of originality &amp; newness in\nthe same.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>While\nmaking the design judgement, the Court introduced that the applicant has filed\nto describe any form of uniqueness in the bottle design or certificate of\nregistration. There is no particular dimensional ratio of the bottle given in\nthe design. The majority of the manufacturers produce bottles for comprising\nparticular liquid quantity by measurement unless the petitioner had any claim\nover the particular ratio of dimension that was not early existed, there can be\nno originality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conclusion\"><\/span>Conclusion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>There would be a complex condition when authorities find it difficult to differentiate between the Design Act and the <strong>Copyright Act<\/strong><sup><a class=\"text-primary\" href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Copyright_law_of_India\"><strong>[1]<\/strong><\/a><\/sup>. Though the Design Act tells about the design factors of a specific product, sometimes it may challenge the copyright aspect. These are some well-known design judgements that are nail-biting and thought-proving.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"text-left\"><b>Read our article<\/b>:<mark style=\"background: #fffd03 !important;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/what-are-the-responsibilities-of-software-copyright\/\">What Are The Responsibilities of Software Copyright?\n<\/a><\/mark><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>According to the Design Act, 2000, the word design means only the aspects of pattern, shape, and configuration, the compositions of colours or lines available on any article, whether 2d or 3d, set out by any industrial means or process, and doesn\u2019t comprise any mark as described in the Cause (v) of sub-section (1) of [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":5972,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[928],"tags":[690],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5967"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5967"}],"version-history":[{"count":14,"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5967\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5982,"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5967\/revisions\/5982"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5972"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5967"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5967"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/swaritadvisors.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5967"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}