{"id":31203,"date":"2021-05-28T12:55:42","date_gmt":"2021-05-28T07:25:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/?p=31203"},"modified":"2025-10-08T18:23:07","modified_gmt":"2025-10-08T12:53:07","slug":"famous-design-judgements-made-by-court-in-india","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/famous-design-judgements-made-by-court-in-india\/","title":{"rendered":"Here are Some Famous Design Judgements Made by Court in India"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"has-drop-cap\">As per the Design Act, 2000, the term Design means only the features of shape, pattern,&nbsp;and configuration, the composition of lines or colours available on any article, whether 2d or 3d, prepared by any industrial process or means, and does not include any mark as mentioned in clause (v) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. In this write-up, we shall disclose some of the most popular Design judgements made by the honourable Court in India.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title ez-toc-toggle\" style=\"cursor:pointer\">Page Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><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><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 eztoc-toggle-hide-by-default' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/famous-design-judgements-made-by-court-in-india\/#Benefits_under_Design_Act\" >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:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/famous-design-judgements-made-by-court-in-india\/#MS_Whirpool_Of_India_Ltd_vs_MSVideocon_Industries_SUIT_LDG_NO_1675_OF_2012_on_25_July_2012\" >M\/S Whirpool Of India Ltd vs M\/S.Videocon Industries SUIT (LDG) NO. 1675 OF 2012 on 25 July 2012<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/famous-design-judgements-made-by-court-in-india\/#Bharat_Glass_Tubes_Ltd_V_Gopal_Glass_Works_Ltd_Air2008sc2520\" >Bharat Glass Tubes Ltd V. Gopal Glass Works Ltd., Air2008sc2520<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/famous-design-judgements-made-by-court-in-india\/#Troikaa_Pharmaceuticals_Ltd_V_Pro_Laboratories_Ltd_20083glr2635\" >Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd V. Pro Laboratories Ltd, (2008)3glr2635<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/famous-design-judgements-made-by-court-in-india\/#MS_S_K_Industries_V_Dipak_Ghosh_Mana_Da_Trading_201042Ptc96Del\" >M\/S S K Industries V. Dipak Ghosh @ 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-6\" href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/famous-design-judgements-made-by-court-in-india\/#Sree_Vishnu_Bottles_Vs_The_State_Of_Tamil_Nadu_WPNos1295_And_1296_Of_2012_On_9_February_2012\" >Sree Vishnu Bottles Vs The State Of Tamil Nadu W.P.Nos.1295 And 1296 Of 2012 On 9 February 2012<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/famous-design-judgements-made-by-court-in-india\/#_Maya_Appliances_V_Urooj_Ahmed_OA_Nos_1096_1097_Of_2008_Application_No_4695_Of_2008_In_CS_No_949_Of_2008_Madras_HC\" >\u00a0Maya Appliances V. Urooj Ahmed, O.A. Nos. 1096 &amp; 1097 Of 2008 &amp; Application No. 4695 Of 2008 In C.S. No. 949 Of 2008, Madras H.C.<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/famous-design-judgements-made-by-court-in-india\/#Conclusion\" >Conclusion\u00a0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Benefits_under_Design_Act\"><\/span> Benefits under Design Act <span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Confer exclusive rights to owner <\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Protect design from possible act of infringement <\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Increases the commercial value of product <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"MS_Whirpool_Of_India_Ltd_vs_MSVideocon_Industries_SUIT_LDG_NO_1675_OF_2012_on_25_July_2012\"><\/span>M\/S Whirpool Of India Ltd vs M\/S.Videocon Industries SUIT (LDG) NO. 1675 OF 2012 on 25 July 2012<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>In a motion of interim ban\nbefore the Bombay high court, Whirlpool claimed that Videocon had violated its\nregistered design for its washing machine, possessing a rectangular shape on\none side &amp; a semi-circular shape with a jettisoned panel for the knobs. The\nrespondent also stated that the petitioner had two identical designs, &amp; the\ndesign in this suit possessed a minor variation.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In light of sections 6(3) and (4), the registered design act, the Court held that the design could not be rejected even it lacks novelty or already known to public. The Court, after disapproving the invalidity claim, scrutinized the infringement issues based on appearance. Holding that the similarities were imperative than any marginal differences, the Court said that there was a violation of the plaintiff&#8217;s design. This was indeed one of the prolific Design judgements from the judicial viewpoint.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Bharat_Glass_Tubes_Ltd_V_Gopal_Glass_Works_Ltd_Air2008sc2520\"><\/span>Bharat Glass Tubes Ltd V. Gopal Glass Works Ltd., Air2008sc2520<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The terms &#8220;new or original&#8221; mentioned in Section 4 imply that the registered design awaiting publication or already published and has a unique design that no one has reproduced. Section 2(d) design implies the application of configuration, design etc., to any article. And since the defendant has cited that he was applying the design only to glass sheets, he would have authority to do so, although the design has been already found on the engraved rollers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Troikaa_Pharmaceuticals_Ltd_V_Pro_Laboratories_Ltd_20083glr2635\"><\/span>Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd V. Pro Laboratories Ltd, (2008)3glr2635<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p> Though the D shaped design wasn&#8217;t unique in a general sense, it was original from the law&#8217;s viewpoint. Although the said design was well-known, its application to the tablet was innovative, thereby making it eligible for the <a href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/design-registration\"><strong>Design registration<\/strong><\/a>. The test of knowing the similarity between two designs have to be judged by the eye &amp; each design has to be identified as a whole with all its component features, regardless of relevancy.&nbsp; <\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"MS_S_K_Industries_V_Dipak_Ghosh_Mana_Da_Trading_201042Ptc96Del\"><\/span>M\/S S K Industries V. Dipak Ghosh @ Mana Da Trading, 2010(42)Ptc96(Del)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Petitioners sued the defendant\non basics of design infringement related to the cup in which jelly was being\npacked. The plaintiff alleged that the respondent had breached the Design Act\nprovisions by using a similar design. The Court opined that the design\nregistration for the cup lacks application of mind and novelty of the design.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The shape is a widely\nrecognized geometrical shape, and it doesn&#8217;t adhere to originality in terms of\nshape or dimensions. While offering a temporary injunction, the Court should\nconsider that the design must be correctly registered and it there must be a\ncertain element of novelty and originality in the same.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>While making the Design judgment, the Court mentioned that the plaintiff has failed to mention any sort of novelty in the bottle design or registration certificate. There is no specific bottle&#8217;s dimensional ratio given in the design. As most manufacturers produce bottles for containing specific liquid quantity by measurement unless the petitioner had any claim over specific dimensions&#8217; ratio that was not previously existed, there can be no novelty.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Sree_Vishnu_Bottles_Vs_The_State_Of_Tamil_Nadu_WPNos1295_And_1296_Of_2012_On_9_February_2012\"><\/span>Sree Vishnu Bottles Vs The State Of Tamil Nadu W.P.Nos.1295 And 1296 Of 2012 On 9 February 2012<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The plaintiffs were the two\nentities in the business of buying empty beer and paper from small merchants in\nTamil Nadu. The secured bottles were then routed to Karnataka and M.P. for\nrecycling purpose. The petitioners claimed they were involved in the business\nfor more than 30 years and have required permissions to do so. The plaintiffs\nclaim that two government authorities, i.e. Regional Transport Officer and the\nlocal Inspector of Police, discourage them from carrying out such\nactivity.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Later, it was found that some bottles possess design registration under the Act by certain distilleries. The enforcement agencies argued that such transportation is unlawful from Design Act&#8217;s viewpoint. Apparently, the FIR has been filed against the plaintiffs, alleging Section 406 of IPC and <strong>section 22 of the design act. <\/strong>The plaintiffs claimed that the said agencies were not allowing their vehicle to pass and that no one could be prevented from transporting bottles in such a manner without an injunction from a court.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The High Court rejected the petitions by declaring that they were without merit and their claim was vague; hence no blanket order could be passed for this purpose. Clearly, while making the design judgements, Court considers the impact of the violation on other section as well.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"_Maya_Appliances_V_Urooj_Ahmed_OA_Nos_1096_1097_Of_2008_Application_No_4695_Of_2008_In_CS_No_949_Of_2008_Madras_HC\"><\/span>\u00a0Maya Appliances V. Urooj Ahmed, O.A. Nos. 1096 &amp; 1097 Of 2008 &amp; Application No. 4695 Of 2008 In C.S. No. 949 Of 2008, Madras H.C.<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Application for a perpetual\nban prevents defendants from violating registered design available on\napplicants&#8217; products and for direction to the defendant to pay compensation for\ndamages caused by the applicant. The question was whether litigation for\ndesign&#8217;s infringement could be filed in the Court within whose jurisdiction the\nplaintiff resides. No provision in the Design Act relates to jurisdiction.\nThus, it is clear that litigation must be filed pursuant to general principles\nin the Code of Civil Procedure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>However, the Court argued that\nthe litigation for design infringement must be held to be the same as the suit\nfor copyright violation in the design. Hence, the provision under Section 62 of\nthe Copyright Act would be applicable to design infringement as well. The Court\nopined that a suit for the design infringement could be filed in the Court in\nwhose jurisdiction the plaintiff resides.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conclusion\"><\/span>Conclusion\u00a0<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>There would be a tricky\nsituation when authorities find it hard to draw a distinction between the\nCopyright and Design Act.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Even though Design Act talks about the design elements of a certain product, sometimes it may contradict the Copyright element. These are some popular design judgements that are nail-biting and thought-provoking. Let us know if you think about the aforesaid topic.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"text-left\"><b>Read our article<\/b>:<mark style=\"background: #fffd03 !important;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/cancellation-of-design-registration-in-india\/\">Cancellation of Design Registration in India\n<\/a><\/mark><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>As per the Design Act, 2000, the term Design means only the features of shape, pattern,&nbsp;and configuration, the composition of lines or colours available on any article, whether 2d or 3d, prepared by any industrial process or means, and does not include any mark as mentioned in clause (v) of sub-section (1) of section 2 [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":22,"featured_media":31240,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[455],"tags":[1777],"acf":{"service_id":"390"},"authorName":"Pankaj Tyagi","authorImageUrl":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/MicrosoftTeams-image-42.jpg","authorDescription":"Pankaj has a diverse experience of writing research papers, blog, and articles during his college time. Earlier, he was working as a tax consultant in a financial firm, but his interest in writing drives him to pursue a career in the writing field.","postViews":4538,"readingTime":4,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31203"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/22"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=31203"}],"version-history":[{"count":19,"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31203\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":70189,"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31203\/revisions\/70189"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/31240"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31203"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31203"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/corpbiz.io\/learning\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31203"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}