The Designs Act, 2000 mandates that cancellation petitions must be filed with the Controller, not the High Court, thereby limiting the jurisdiction of the High Court in such matters.

ORDER :

(P.B. Balaji, J.)

(Prayer: Original Petition has been filed for Design Cancellation from the Register under Section 19 read with Section 4 of the Designs Act, 2000, to cancel the Registration of the first respondent, which was granted by the 4 th respondent on February 9th 2024, being the Design No.400027-001.)

The Original Petition has been filed to cancel the Registration of the first respondent, which was granted by the 4 th respondent on February 9th 2024, being the Design No.400027-001.

2. Since the maintainability of this Original Petition would have to be decided first, notice was issued to the official respondent/R4 on 17.04.2024 by this Court.

3. I have heard Mr.Ramesh Ganapathy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.K.Subburanga Bharathi, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Ramesh Ganapathy would submit that the above Original Petition is maintainable before this Court. He would fortify his submission in this regard by stating that the Designs Act, 2000 (in short 'Act') is not a complete code by itself and it refers to the Patents Act, 1970. Further, he would submit that there is no express ouster of jurisdiction of the Court in the Designs Act, 2000. He would also draw a comparison with the Trademarks Act, 1999, Copy Right Act, 1957, Patents Act, 1970 and Geographical Indication (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 in this regard. Lastly, he would submit that originally the Design Office was only in Kolkata but subsequently, the Design Office is also opened in Chennai and when both the petitioner and the respondent are in Chennai, it would be improper and unfair to direct the petitioner to go to Kolkata for seeking cancellation of the Design in the subject case.

5. Per contra, Mr.Subbu Ranga Bharathi, learned Central Government Standing Counsel would submit that this Court is the Appellate Forum as against the order passed by the Controller under Section 19 of the Designs Act, 2000, in an action Cancellation of Registration and therefore, this Court cannot act as a Controller and decide a petition for cancellation of registration of the Design. He would therefore pray for dismissal of the Original Petition as not being Maintainable.

6. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Designs Act does not oust the jurisdiction of this Court explicitly. He would refer to Section 2(e) of the Act, which defines “High Court” to have the same meaning as assigned in Section 2(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. Similarly, 2(h) of the Act, adopts the very same definition of the “Patent Office” as referred in Section 74 of the Patents Act, 1970. Section 23 of the Act makes certain provisions of the Patents Act, 1970, applicable to Designs Act. No doubt, prior to the enactment of the present Designs Act, 2000 and the promulgation of the Design Rules, 2000, the Indian Patent and Designs Act, 1911 was in force. Section 51(A) of the said Act runs as follows:-

“51A.Cancellation of registration.

(1) Any person interested may present a petition for the cancellation of the registration of a design-

(a) at any time after the registration of the design, to the High Court on any of the following grounds, namely:-

(i) that the design has been previously registered in 2 [India]; or

(ii) that it has been published in 2 [India] prior to the date of registration ; or

(iii) that the design is not a new or original design ; or

(b) within one year from the date of the registration, to the Controller on either of the grounds specified in sub- clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (a).

(2) An appeal shall lie from any order of the Controller under this section to the High Court, and the Controller may at any time refer any such petition to the High Court, and the High Court shall decide any petition so referred.”

8. Under the said Act, it was open to any interested person to se