Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Evolution of Competition
Tr aditional product
Te chnolo gy
Pricin g o f p roduct
Qu alit y o f P ro duct
A Design should:
Be New or Original
Be Distinguishable from known designs
Be applied to an article
Not be disclosed to public in any form
Appeal to eye
Not comprise of obscene matter
Not be contrary to public order or morality
New or Original
Side view
STATEMENT OF NOVELTY
DISCLAIMER
Signature of App
Name of the Applicant No. of sheet
XYZ, PVT.LTD. Sheet No.-
Statement of Novelty
The novelty resides in the shape & configuration of the 'CHAIR' as illustrated.
No claim is made by virtue of this registration to any right to the exclusive use
of the words, letters, numbers, or trade marks appearing in the representation.
No claim is made by virtue of this registration to any right to the exclusive use
of the words, letters, numbers, or trade marks appearing in the representation.
6 Inspection of Registered design under Section 5 500.00
17(1)
7 On request for information of design when 6 500.00
registration No. is given under Section 18.
8 On request for information of design when 7 1000.00
registration No. not given .
Contd …
THE FIRST SCHEDULE FEES (Contd. from previous slide…)
20 On Notice of opposition under Rule 40 19 100.00
THE FIRST SCHEDULE FEES (Contd. from previous slide…)
23 On request to alter name or address or address 22 200.00
for Service in the Register of design under Rule
31.
24 On request for entries of two addresses in the 23 200.00
Register of Design.
25 On petition under Rule 46 for amendment of any --- 500.00
document
26 On petition under Rule 47 for amendment of any --- 500.00
document
27 Inspection of Register of Design under Rule 38 (in --- 250.00
respect of each design).
STAGES FROM FILING TO
REGISTRATION
Numbering &
Filling of Dating of Examination
Application Application
Noncompliance Communication
Abandoned of Objection (s) of Objection (s)
Hearing if Removal of
Refusal objection (s) is Objection (s)
/are contested
Re Examination
Appeal to Waiving /
High Court removal of Acceptance
Objection (s)
Notification in the
In case of allowance
Official Gazette
of appeal
Issue of Certificate
Application of Design in Industries
Small Scale Industries:
Shoe, Chappal, Pen, Textile Goods, Carpet, Wall Clock,
Ceramic Tiles, Plumbing Equipments, Sanitary Goods,
Package, Chairs, Tables, Photo - Frame, Tiffin Box,
Water Jug, Casserole, Water Bottle, Bags, Suitcase,
Flower Vase, Ash-Tray, Tooth-Brush, Toy, Fan etc.
Contd.
Example with a toothbrush
Pattern or ornament or composition of colour /
lines relates to something two dimensional.
Contd.
Example with a toothbrush
When a figure, showing the feature of the design of
an article, is drawn on a paper it will be regarded as
if design has been applied to the article sought to be
registered.
Contd.
Example with a toothbrush
A new shape applied to toothbrush which
produces a new visual appearance on the
article.
Contd.
Example with a toothbrush
Design means a conception or suggestion or idea
of a shape or pattern which can be applied to an
article by industrial process or means.
Contd.
Example with a toothbrush
Any mode or principle of construction or operation
or anything which is in substance a mere
mechanical device, would not be registerable
design.
Contd.
Example with a toothbrush
Contd.
Example with a toothbrush
Contd.
Example with a toothbrush
Copinger & Skone James on Copyright, 15th Edn., Vol. 1, pg. 730
Infringement
Infringement in the context of Indian Textiles, Apparels and Life Style
Industry:
Indian Textiles:
If, the intention of the designer is to ensure that only one piece of the
garment is manufactured, then the same could also be protected as
the artistic work imprinted on the piece of cloth having copyrights.
Allegation of infringement of
copyright as the defendant used the
dress in a movie which was worn by
an actress
The Court although upholding that the motives etc. of the plaintiff
was artistic and also holding that the defendants had copied it, on a
legal and technical argument that more than 50 reproduction had
been made, refused to grant injunction
Cases
1997(17) PTC 268: Baldev Singh vs. Shriram Footwear
Thus Court had held that the plaintiff himself being a pirater, no
injunction can be granted in favour of the plaintiff
Cases
Hindustan Sanitaryware & Industries Ltd. vs. Dip Crafts
Industries: 2003(26) PTC163 (Del)
Single Judge of this Court held that once a design was registered,
prima facie, it was only the registered proprietor, who could take
benefit of the registered design
The Court then negatived the contention that even if a false plea about
the validity of registration was taken up by a Defendant, no interim
injunction should be granted.
The Court went on to hold that the contention that the design had no
novelty was a valid defence to the Suit and could be raised to
challenge the validity of the registration.
It further held that this did not have any bearing at the initial stage and
that these were matters to be decided on evidence.
It must be mentioned that after so holding the Court, went into the
merits and held that in that case it had not been shown that the design
was previously published
Cases
Faber Castell Vs. Pikpen - 2003 PTC 538
Design of photo-frames
Registered design
Defendant no.2 was an employee of
plaintiff
Injunction granted protecting the
copyright in the design of photo-
frames
International Cases
RADELY GOWNS Ltd. v COSTAS SPYROU and BROKE v
SPINCERS DRESS DESIGN Ltd.(1975) FSR 455
- design sketches,
- cutting patterns
- prototype garments
RADELY GOWNS Ltd. v COSTAS SPYROU and BROKE v
SPINCERS DRESS DESIGN Ltd.(1975) FSR 455
Def argued
Prototype is not work of
artis.crtms.
No one author is involved
Cutting patterns are
functional
One of the sketches was
copied from earlier dress
Dress could not
reproduce a sketch
Stiffness was to be given
otherwise it is not a dress
Delay
RADELY GOWNS Ltd. v COSTAS SPYROU and BROKE v
SPINCERS DRESS DESIGN Ltd.(1975) FSR 455
Court Held:
It is work of A.C
Need not unite with one
author
Dress can be a 3
dimensional reproduction
of a sketch
Huge diff between the
earlier dress and new one,
hence plaintiff work is
original
BRIGID FOLEY Ltd. v ELLOT (1982) RPC 433
MERCANDISING CORPORATION v
HARPBOND(1983) FSR 32 P, 32 (Facial make-up
was not held a painting within the meaning of sec 3
of the U.K. copyright act.)
Ford Motor Co.1993 RPC 399
Vehicle parts are not subject matter of design because’ they have no
value in commerce except as part of a vehicle
Mirrors, seats, etc., were capable of registration as substitution was
possible without affecting shape of the vehicle.
The distinction that seems to have been drawn is that there are several
parts which are mostly hidden and never seen, such parts cannot be
registered as designs.
However, parts and their circuits if in drawing form are artistic works
George Hensher Ltd s. Restawile Upholstery
1975 RPC 31
Upholstered chairs & settees.
One prototype was evolved – chairs were copied from it and
sold
Def. copied the chairs and hence the prototype
Trial Court granted injunction. Appeal court dismissed the
injunction. HL refused protection
George Hensher Ltd s. Restawile Upholstery
1975 RPC 31
Artistic craftsmanship need not necessarily mean “work of art”.
The product may be a commercial success but need not be of
Art craftsmanship
Merchandising Corpn Vs. Harpbond
1983 FSR 32