Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
TTK Prestige Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Kcm Appliances Private Limited – Respondent
CS(COMM) 697 of 2022
Decided On : 13-04-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. registration and scope of design (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. novelty and uniqueness of design (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. claims of piracy and prior publication argument (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. defendant's responses and counterclaims (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. functional versus aesthetic designs (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. assessment of design piracy (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 7. court observations on functional design (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 8. overall conclusion on design validity (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
JUDGMENT
| AN INDEXED VIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT | ||
| S.No. | Para Nos. | |
| 1 | The lis | |
| 2 | The plaint | 1-15 |
| 3 | The written statement of the defendant | 16-25 |
| 4 | Replication by plaintiff | 26-32 |
| 5 | Rival submissions at the Bar | 33-36 |
| 6 | Analysis | |
| 7 | Validity of Certificate of Registration | 37-37.11 |
| 8 | The Legal Position | 38.1 |
| 9 | Bharat Glass Tube | 38.2-38.2.14 |
| 10 | Carlsberg Breweries | 38.3-38.3.4 |
| 11 | Reckitt Benckiser | 38.4-38.4.8 |
| 12 | Relaxo Footwears | 38.5-38.5.4 |
| 13 | Kamdhenu Ltd. | 38.6-38.6.5 |
| 14 | Pentel Kabushiki Kaisha | 38.7-38.7.3 |
| 15 | Dart Industries | 38.8-38.8.2 |
| 16 | Telemechanique & Controls | 38.9-38.9.1 |
| 17 | Crocs | 38.10-38.10.9 |
| 18 | B. Chawla & Sons | 38.11-38.11.4 |
| 19 | Castrol India | 38.12-38.12.7 |
| 20 | The takeaway | 38.13 |
| 21 | (Remaining issues) | 39 |
| 22 | Challenge to validity of suit design on ground of prior publication and want of novelty and originality | 40-40.8 |
| 23 | Allegation of functionality | 41-41.3 |
| 24 | Aspect of piracy/infringement | 42-42.5 |
| 25 | Conclusion | 43-43.3 |
I.A. 16467/2022(Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC)
The lis
The plaint
1. The plaintiff alleges piracy, within the meaning of Section 22(1)1 [22. Piracy of registered design.-- (1) During the existence of copyright in any design it shall not be lawful for any person-(a) for the purpose of sale to apply or cause to be applied to any article in any class of articles in which the design is registered, the design or any fraudulent or obvious imitation thereof, except with the licence or written consent of the registered proprietor, or to do anything with a view to enable the design to be so applied...] of the Designs Act, 2000, of the Design No. 324727-001, registered in the petitioner`s favour for a "Pressure Cooker with Container and Lid (Set) for Household". The suit design was registered on 1st July 2020, w.e.f. 13th December 2019.
2. The certificate of registration of the suit design is undoubtedly peculiar, as would become apparent from what follows.
3. As always, the Certificate of Registration is issued for the front view, back view, right view, left view, top view, bottom view and perspective view of the suit design. Thus far, it is like any other certificate of registration of a design under the Designs Act. Below each view, the following recital figures:
"Novelty resides in the shape and configuration of the PRESSURE COOKER WITH CONTAINER AND LID (SET) FOR HOUSEHOLD as illustrated.
No claim is made by virtue of the registration in respect of any mechanical or other action of the mechanisms whatsoever.
No claim is made by virtue of the registration in respect of any mood or principle of construction of the article.
No claim is made by virtue of the registration in respect of colour or colour combination.
No claim is made by virtue of the registration in respect of words, letters, number or trademark."
4. Over the afore extracted recitals, in each view, is to be found, however, the image, not of one, but of six pressure cookers, of which one has a lid and a pressure gasket and five are open. These pressure cookers are of different dimensions and capacities. The aforesaid views of the suit design, as provided in the certificate of registration, may be reproduced thus:
[IMG]
[IMG]
[IMG]
5. There was a certain amount of consternation, during arguments, as to the exact meaning and interpretation of such a certificate of registration of a design. Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel for the defendants, in fact advanced, as his first submission, the contention that a certificate of registration such as the one held by the plaintiff in respect of the suit design was ipso facto invalid, as
The court ruled that design piracy requires examination from the perspective of an informed user aware of prior art; the plaintiff's design not being a fraudulent or obvious imitation led to the dism....
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....
The Designs Act protects novelty and originality in registered designs, with a focus on visual appeal to determine design piracy.
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....
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.
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
