IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.
In the Matter of Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor – Appellant
Versus
Controller of Patents and Designs and Others – Respondents
AID No. 5 of 2023, IA No. GA/2 of 2023
Decided On : 24-05-2024
Design - Cancellation of Registered Design - Designs Act, 2000 - Sections 2, 4, 19 - The court analyzed the provisions regarding the originality and prior publication of designs, emphasizing that mere registration abroad does not equate to prior publication in India, impacting the cancellation decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's registered design for an air cooler was canceled by the Deputy Controller based on a claim of prior publication by a Chinese design. The appellant contested this cancellation, citing a previous dismissal of a similar claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Deputy Controller failed to adequately consider the evidence regarding prior publication and did not properly assess the admissibility of the evidence presented, leading to an unsustainable cancellation order.
Issues: Whether the registered design had been published prior to its registration and whether it was new or original under the Designs Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that prior publication must be established with clear evidence, and mere registration in a foreign country does not suffice to cancel a design registered in India.
Result: The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
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 has registered designs for ‘Air Coolers’ bearing registration nos. 314930-001 and 314930-002 dated 22 March 2019 and 18 March 2019 respectively. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 are statutory authorities.
5. Briefly, a Chinese Company known as Ningbo Chenwu Humidifying Equipment Factory had in or about 2019 filed an application seeking cancellation of the registered design of the appellant on the ground that the Chinese company had registered a similar design bearing No. ZL200930131277.8 in China and that they were the prior publishers thereof. In such proceedings, the Chinese company had also produced its registration certificate showing photographs of all six sides of their design and details thereof.
6. The respondent no 2 considered the pleadings and evidence filed by the parties and framed the following issues:
(b) Whether the registered design no. 233559 has been published in India or any country prior to its date of registration?
(c) Whether the design no. 233559 is new or original?
(d) Whether the said design is registrable under the Act?
By an order dated 30 September 2019, the cancellation petition filed by the Chinese company was dismissed on the ground that the they had failed to establish any case of prior publication under section 4(b) of the Act and also that the website of the Chinese company did not establish the ground of prior publication. By such order, it was also held that the design of the appellant was original and novel.
7. Thereafter, the private respondent No. 3 had applied for registration of two designs similar to that of the appellant and the same were granted bearing registration nos. 314930-001 and 314930-002 respectively with effect from 5 February 2019. In view of the fact that the registered designs of the respondent no 3 were identical to that of the appellant, the appellant was compelled to file a suit for infringement before the High Court at Rajasthan wherein an order of restraint on the design of the respondent was passed on 28 November 2022 wherein the private respondent no. 3 was restrained from infringing the registered design of the appellant and both the impugned desings stood cancelled. It is a matter of record that both the appellant and the private respondent no. 3 have been contesting proceedings before different Courts. This litigation is obviously a sequel to the acrimonious history of litigation between the two parties.
8. On 4 May 2021, the respondent filed an application under section 19 of the Act, seeking cancellation of the appellant’s registered design no. 233559 dated 23 December 2010 under class 23-04 of the design ‘AIR-COOLER’ on the ground that the same was incapable of being registered since the same had been published prior to the filing date in Chin
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal
Bharat Glass Tube Limited vs. Gopal Glass Limited
Gopal Glass Works Ltd vs. Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs and Others
ITC Limited vs. The Controller of Patents and Designs and Ors. AIR 2017 Cal 156
Reckitt Benkiser India Ltd. vs. Wyeth Ltd. (2013) 54 PTC 90 (FB)
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.
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.