Back
RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR
In The Matter Of : UST Global (Singapore) Pte Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Controller of Patents and Designs – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.
1. The appellant assails an order dated 4 September 2019 passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents of Designs under the Designs Act 2000 refusing an application being Application no.298921 filed on October 30, 2017 for registration of a design titled “Touch Screen” for a novel surface ornamentation which is a Graphical User Interface (GUI).
2. Briefly, the appellant is a global leading provider of end-to-end IT services and solutions for different companies. The appellant offers services in areas like Advanced Analytics, Data Engineering Services, Data Strategy Consulting, Industry Point Solutions, Data Management Cyber Security, Infrastructure etc.
3. It is contended that the claimed design is a novel surface ornamentation displayed on a touch screen. The concept of GUI contemplates visual representation of configuration of icons and several elements on a touch screen. GUI is also used as a powerful differentiation of products and user experience with the ultimate aim of influencing customer decision when buying such products.
4. By the impugned order, the application for registration has been rejected on the ground that a GUI is incapable of desig
The onus to prove lack of novelty or originality in a design as a ground of defence against design piracy lies with the defendants, and unsubstantiated claims cannot invalidate the plaintiff's copyri....
A registered design cannot simultaneously be claimed as a trademark, and prior publication invalidates its registration under the Designs Act.
The protection of registered design depends on aesthetic appeal, and if the design possesses significant artistic value, it can be safeguarded against piracy despite functional elements.
The court established the validity of the registered design, the infringement by the defendant, and the entitlement to rendition of accounts. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation....
Temporary injunction denied as plaintiffs failed to establish prima facie case due to admitted similarities in designs and functionality claims, violating provisions of the Designs Act.
The presumption of receipt under Rule 3 establishes that an application is deemed filed when sent, and overlapping claims in design and trademark are permissible for registration.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
