Calcutta High Court
S.A.MASUD
Western Engineering - Appellant
Versus
Paul Engineering - Respondent
Matter No. 574 of 1966
Decided On : 03/10/1967
{'KEYWORD': 'DESIGN', 'SUBJECT': 'CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION', 'ACT SECTION LIST': ['INDIAN PATENTS AND DESIGNS ACT, 1911, SECTION 51-A'], 'SUMMARY': "The court held that the respondent's design was substantially the same as the petitioner's design and, therefore, ordered the cancellation of the respondent's design registration. The court found that the respondent's design was not a new or original design and that it was an imitation of the petitioner's design."}
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a registered partnership firm, was the proprietor of a design duly registered under the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911. The respondent also claimed to have a monopoly in the right to manufacture and sale of cycle locks of a design closely similar to or identical with that the petitioner's registered design. The petitioner challenged the validity of the respondent's design registration on several grounds, including that the respondent's design was not a new or original design.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's design was substantially the same as the petitioner's design and that the respondent's design was not a new or original design.
Issues: Whether the respondent's design was substantially the same as the petitioner's design.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the words "the design" in Section 51-A of the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911 should be judicially construed as "the substantially same Design".
Final Decision: The court ordered the cancellation of the respondent's design registration and awarded costs to the petitioner.
ORDER :- This is an application under S. 51-A of the Indian Patents and Designs Act (II), 1911, in which the petitioner has prayed for an order that the Design No. 127199 in respect of a Cycle lock registered in the name of the respondent on October 10, 1965 be revoked and/or cancelled.
2. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm and carries on its business at No. 9206, Nawabgunge Library Road, Delhi 6. The said firm is the proprietor of a design duly registered under the said Act as Design No. 125728 of May 25, 1965. The said design, was and is in respect of locks for cycle and the novelty or the originality was in respect of the shape and configuration of the design of the said locks for cycle as illustrated in the annexure to the certificate of the Controller of Patents and Designs dated May 25, 1965 which are annexed to the petition and collectively marked "A". After such registration, the petitioner has been manufacturing commercially the said cycle locks and selling them to the public which involve, according to the petitioner a new and original design as to the shape and configuration of the outer frame of cycle lock comprising inter alia, the visibility of the outer portion of the devices of lock, i.e., protruding portion of the lock cylinder in which key is inserted for operation it is the petitioner's case that prior to the introduction of the said design of the lock and its registration it was a common practice in the trade to have the cycle locks having keys on a side of the locks in the plain surface on the main frame of the cycle-locks and without any raised portion. The respondent is also claiming to have a monopoly in the right to manufacture and sale of cycle locks of a design closely similar to or identical with that the petitioner's registered design No. 125728. A photograph of the cycle lock relating to the said design registered in the name of the respondent is annexed to the petition and marked "B". The petitioner has challenged the validity of the said design No. 127199 dated October 10, 1965 registered in the name of the respondent on several grounds set out in paragraph 10 of the petition and, as stated earlier, has prayed for the cancellation of the same.
3. The respondent's case, as set out in the affidavit of Sri Awtar Singh, may be stated as follows : The petitioner's design No. 125728 is not a new or original design; it is a common design previously published in India. It is merely an arrangement of well known design of Chinese origin and is an exact copy of the Cycle locks marketed by Chinese firm under the trade description "Wing". The respondent had no knowledge of the petitioner's design inasmuch as no publicity was given by the petitioner of their design. Further, the petitioner has obtained registration of their design on misrepresentation of facts and, as such, the registration is illegal and invalid. Lastly, the respondent has submitted that the petitioner is rot entitled to get the revocation or cancellation of the respondent's design inasmuch as the respondent's design is original and new and is in no way similar to or identical with the petitioner's design and, as such, the respondent has committed no piracy of the petitioner's registered design.
4. Mr. Sankar Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to S. 51-A(1)(a) of the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911 and has contended that his client prays for cancellation of the registration of the respondent's design on all the three grounds mentioned in the said subsection. According to him, the petitioner's design has been registered in India on May 25, 1965 whereas the respondent has got his design registered on October 10, 1965. Further, the publication of the petitioner's design has been done long prior to the date of the registration of the respondent's design. Lastly, Mr. Ghosh has urged that the respondent's design is not a new or original design. According to him, it is not necessary that the res
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.