The court emphasized that the novelty and originality of a design should be judged by the eye of an instructed person, and that a design must be significantly distinguishable from known designs to be registered.

SOUMEN SEN, J.

1. This appeal is arising out of an order dated 12th March 2018, by which the application for cancellation of the design No.242843 registered on 3rd February, 2012 in class 06-01 in respect of application of the design to chair was dismissed.

2. The grounds for challenge before the controller are that the impugned design is not new or original, as it has been already disclosed to public and not significantly distinguishable from the known design or combination of known designs.

3. The contentions of the applicant before the controller are summarized below.

4. In the application for registration novelty is claimed in all views for the whole shape, configuration and surface pattern of the Chair. ‘Original’ means that the design originating from the other. There is a distinction between ‘new’ and ‘original’. ‘New’ is referred to a case where the shape or pattern is wholly new in itself. ‘Original’ in relation to a design would refer to a case which could be old but new in its application to the particular subject matter. The word ‘original’ means that the person has originated something. The person has conceived an idea by exercising his intellectual faculty and thereby has produced a particular pattern or shape reduced in a tangible form applicable to a particular article to which he suggests that it shall be applied and only then a design can be said to be original. The design registered by the respondent is neither new or original as the same has already been disclosed to public and not significantly distinguishable from the known designs or combination of known designs and, accordingly, liable to be cancelled under Section 19(1)(c) of the Designs Act, 2000.

5. In the statement for cancellation of design as well as affidavit in evidence the petitioner has referred to four designs of chair which alleged to have already been registered in India prior to the application for registration of design by the respondent. It was contended that since the design has been previously registered in India, the said design is liable to be cancelled under Section 19(1)(a) of the Designs Act, 2000.

6. A list of designs of chair relied upon by the petitioner in the said proceeding which was alleged to have been registered in India prior to the application for impugned registrations are:-

Design S. No.	Respondent’s Design	Similar Design Details
1	Image	Document Detail			Image
		Application No. 230906			Image
		Date of Filling : 18/08/2010	IDC Code : 06-01
		Publication Date :15/04/2011	Journal Number : 15/2011
		Priority Date : N/A	Priority Number : N/A
		Priority Country : N/A	Application Type : Other than Natural Person
		Application Name : Polyest Plastic Pvt. Ltd.
		Name of Article : Chair
2	Image	Document Detail			Image
		Application No : 230909			Image
		Date of Filling : 18/08/2010		IDC Code : 06-01
		Publication Date : 20/05/2011		Journal Number : 08/2011
		Priority Date : N/A		Priority Number : N/A
		Priority Country : N/A		Application Type : Other than Natural Person
		Application Name : Polyest Plastic Pvt. Ltd.
		Name of Article : Chair
3	Image	Document Detail			Image
		Application No : 227337			Image
		Date of Filling : 19/02/2010		IDC Code : 06-01
		Publication Date : 25/02/2011		Journal Number : 08/2011
		Priority Date : N/A		Priority Number : N/A
		Priority Country : N/A		Application Type : Other than Natural Person
		Application Name : Rita Industries
		Name Articles : Chair
4	Image	Document Detail			Image
		Application No : 241113			Image
		Date of Filling : 30/11/2011		IDC Code : 06-01
		Publication Date : 17/08/2012		Journal Number : 33/2012
		Priority Date : N/A		Priority