Side Ridges on Hawai Slippers Constitute Protectable Design Under Designs Act, 2000: Delhi High Court - 2025-11-18

The Battle for the 'Hawai' Slipper: Delhi HC Rules on Design Piracy

The quintessential Indian hawai slipper, once a basic utilitarian item, has become the center of a sophisticated legal battle in the Intellectual Property Division of the Delhi High Court. In a recent judgment that clarifies the scope of design protection for everyday footwear, the Court has upheld an interim injunction against Aqualite Industries , preventing it from manufacturing footwear that mimics the protected "side-ridge" designs of Relaxo Footwears.

A Quest for Novelty

Relaxo Footwears , renowned for its footwear ranges, holds registered designs (Nos. 325071 and 325074) for its "Bahamas" slippers, characterized by specific vertical ridges along the side surfaces. When Relaxo discovered that Aqualite was rolling out products bearing remarkably similar patterns, it filed for a permanent injunction, alleging piracy under the Designs Act, 2000.

While the learned Single Judge initially granted the injunction, Aqualite appealed, arguing that the designs were not novel, citing various "prior art" configurations existing in the public domain.

Arguments from the Trenches

Aqualite’s defense centered on the claim that the "side ridges" were not a unique design feature but rather a common industry variant. They contended that because the designs were not "new or original" and had been published before the registration, they were invalid for protection.

Relaxo, however, stood its ground, emphasizing that the placement and configuration of the ridges provided a distinct aesthetic appeal that the defendant had clearly replicated for its own commercial benefit. They argued that the similarity went beyond mere coincidence, extending even to the tactical placement of brand names identical to Relaxo’s own product layouts.

The ‘Instructed Eye’: A Legal Standard

Central to the judgment is the Court’s application of the "instructed eye" test. Unlike trademark law—which relies on the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect recollection—design law requires a more discerning judge.

Justice C. Hari Shankar, writing for the Division Bench, underscored that a court must evaluate novelty not from an emotional perspective but through the lens of an "instructed person" who is fully aware of common trade usage and existing prior art. The Court held that while footwear is a constrained medium due to the irregular nature of the human foot, unique features—like the crenellation-shaped ridges on the suit designs—still merit statutory protection if they are significantly distinguishable from known patterns.

Key Observations

The judgment provides a clear roadmap for future design disputes:

• On the standard of evaluation: "The person from whose point of view—both literally as well as figuratively—the comparisons are to be made in the case of a design infringement action, is not a person who is either of average intelligence or of imperfect recollection. Her eye is instructed."
• On aesthetic appeal: "It is not necessary for a design to be registrable, that it must be beautiful or even aesthetically appealing. All that is required is that, it must possess a distinct visual appeal."
• On design piracy: "Design piracy, within the meaning of Section 22(1)(a) would, therefore, take place where the novel features... of the article, or any fraudulent or obvious imitation... are applied to any other article... without licence or consent."

The Verdict: Preserving Design Integrity

The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, noting that the "crenellation-shaped" ridges in the suit designs were distinct from the prior art presented by Aqualite. The Court affirmed that despite the limited "play" manufacturers have in designing footwear, these specific ridges offered a novel configuration that Aqualite failed to distinguish as a common trade variant.

For the industry, this ruling reinforces the sanctity of registered designs. It serves as a stern reminder that while commercial imitation is a common practice, the unauthorized replication of protected novel features—regardless of whether the item is a luxury good or a budget-friendly slipper—will face stringent judicial scrutiny.