Back
C. HARI SHANKAR
Havells India Limited – Appellant
Versus
Polycab India Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT (Oral)
I.A. 11325/2023 & I.A. 18703/2023
1. The plaintiff Havells India Ltd alleges infringement, by the defendant Polycab India Ltd, of three designs, registered in the plaintiff's favour by the Controller of Patents and Designs ("the Controller"). These registrations were granted with effect from 19 February 2016, 28 January 2021 and 2 February 2022. Each registration pertains to a ceiling fan. The ceiling fans manufactured and sold as per the registrations dated 19 February 2016, 28 January 2021 and 2 February 2022 were of the ENTICER, BIANCA ART and BIANCA ART-SANGANER models. For the sake of convenience, this order would alternatively refer to the m as the 2016, 2021 and 2022 suit designs. Novelty was certified, in respect of the 2016 suit design, as residing in its shape and configuration; in respect of the 2021 suit design in its shape, configuration and surface pattern and in the 2022 suit design in its surface pattern.
2. The various views of the aforenoted fans, as registered by the 2016, 2021 and 2022 registrations, may be provided thus:
2016 ENTICER design (Novelty residing in shape and configuration)
| BOTTOM VIEW | |
| PERSPECTIVE VIEW | |
| SIDE VIEW | |
| TOP VIEW |
2021 BIANCA ART
The Designs Act protects novelty and originality in registered designs, with a focus on visual appeal to determine design piracy.
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 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 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 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....
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
