Back
RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR
In the Matter of Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor – Appellant
Versus
Controller of Patents and Designs – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.
1. “In an ideal world, all good patents ought to be granted and all bad ones should be refused. How that is to be achieved given the ever rising flood of applications and the ever increasing importance of Chinese prior art, I have no real idea” [“IP and Other Things” - Robin Jacob at page 239].
2. This is an appeal filed under section 19(2) of the Designs Act, 2000 read with the relevant Rules framed thereunder, directed against an order of cancellation dated 12 April 2023 passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs cancelling the registered design of the appellant bearing no. 233559 for an Air Cooler with effect from 27 December 2010.
3. The appellant is engaged in the business of design, manufacture, sale, and export of industrial air coolers since 2009-2010. The appellant is also the creator of several designs of air coolers and has made huge investments in creating a state of art research and development for both industrial and institutional air coolers.
4. The private respondent no 3 is a trade rival of the appellant, engaged in the manufacture and sale of similar types of air coolers having its operations primarily at Rajkot, Gujrat and
Prior publication must be proven with tangible evidence; foreign registration alone does not invalidate a design registered in India.
Cancellation of the registration of a design can be sought on any of the three grounds, namely that the design had been previously registered in India or that it had been published in India prior to ....
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.
The court ruled that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case of design infringement, necessitating the maintenance of the interim injunction against the defendants based on failure to prove pri....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the maintainability of a counter claim seeking cancellation of registered designs under Section 19 of the Designs Act.
A registered design cannot simultaneously be claimed as a trademark, and prior publication invalidates its registration under the Designs Act.
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
