Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Protection limited to aesthetic features - The Designs Act, 2000 primarily grants protection to the ornamental or visual aspects of a design, not its functional features. As per ["Travel Blue Products India Private Limited vs Miniso Life Style Private Limited - Bombay"], the protection afforded by the DESIGNS ACT, 2000 is for the ornamental/visual aspect of the product and not its functional feature. This indicates that protection is confined to aesthetic elements, provided they are non-functional.
Designs must be non-functional for protection - Several sources emphasize that if a design's features are dictated by function, it cannot be registered or protected under the Act. ["Michael Casey Enterprises Ltd. vs TVC Sky Shop - Delhi"] states, a design which has functional attributes cannot be registered under the Designs Act, and registration is only granted for designs with aesthetic appeal that are not purely mechanical or functional.
Overlap between functionality and aesthetics — While a design may have both aesthetic appeal and functional aspects, the Act restricts protection to the aesthetic/visual features. ["Travel Blue Products India Private Limited vs Miniso Life Style Private Limited - Bombay"] notes that there is a tendency of a unique design to have an overlap between functionality and aesthetics, but the law limits protection to the non-functional, ornamental parts.
Protection and interplay with copyright - The Act explicitly states that copyright protection ceases once a design is registered under the Designs Act. ["A. Ruthramoorthy vs P. Moorthy - Madras"] mentions, if the design is registered under the DESIGNS ACT, the Design would lose its copyright protection under the COPYRIGHT ACT, reinforcing that protection under the Designs Act is exclusive to aesthetic features.
Designs capable of registration are distinct from functional features - The criteria for registration focus on visual appeal rather than technical or functional aspects. ["International Cycle Gears VS Controller of Patents & Designs - Calcutta"] clarifies, a design which has functional attributes cannot be registered, and the registration of a design is not conclusive as subsequently such registration can be challenged on the ground mentioned in Section 19.
Analysis and Conclusion:The Designs Act, 2000 in India limits design protection to aesthetic or ornamental features of an article, explicitly excluding purely functional or mechanical aspects. While a design can possess both aesthetic and functional qualities, only the non-functional, visual elements are protected. This is supported by multiple references, such as ["Travel Blue Products India Private Limited vs Miniso Life Style Private Limited - Bombay"], which state that protection is for ornamental appeal and not functionality, and ["Michael Casey Enterprises Ltd. vs TVC Sky Shop - Delhi"], emphasizing that functional designs are not registrable. Therefore, design protection under the Designs Act 2000 is confined to aesthetic features, not functional features.
In the competitive world of product design, protecting innovative aesthetics can be crucial for businesses. But what if your design serves a functional purpose? A common question arises: Is design protection limited to aesthetic features under the Designs Act, 2000? This post dives into the nuances of India's design law, drawing from statutory provisions and judicial insights to clarify the scope.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information on Indian intellectual property law and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for specific cases.
The Designs Act, 2000 governs the registration and protection of industrial designs in India. At its core, the Act protects novel features of articles that enhance their visual appeal. The main legal finding is clear: protection is primarily limited to features that appeal to the eye, i.e., aesthetic features, and explicitly excludes features that are purely functional or mechanical in nature.In The Matter Of : UST Global (Singapore) Pte Ltd VS Controller of Patents and Designs - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 599
This distinction ensures that design law focuses on appearance rather than utility, leaving functional innovations to patents.
Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000 defines 'design' as:
features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament, or composition of lines or colours applied to an article, which in the finished article appeal to and are judged solely by the eye. In The Matter Of : UST Global (Singapore) Pte Ltd VS Controller of Patents and Designs - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 599
This emphasis on visual judgment underscores that protection hinges on eye appeal, not performance or mechanics. Cryogas Equipment Private Limited VS Inox India Limited - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 628
The Act draws a firm line against functionality:
Judicial precedents reinforce this. In Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co. (2006), the Delhi High Court held that designs relate to non-functional, aesthetic features, and purely functional ones are ineligible. Sonani Industries Pvt. Ltd. VS Prime Diamond Tech - 2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 474In The Matter Of : UST Global (Singapore) Pte Ltd VS Controller of Patents and Designs - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 599
Similarly, in Smithkline Beecham Consumer Brands v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. (1999), the court ruled that primarily functional shapes do not qualify, prioritizing utility over aesthetics. Sonani Industries Pvt. Ltd. VS Prime Diamond Tech - 2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 474
Courts consistently apply the 'eye test'—whether features are judged solely by the eye. Key rulings include:
Other cases echo this:
Designs often overlap with copyrights, but Section 15 of the Copyright Act, 1957 limits protection. Once a design is registered (or capable of registration) under the Designs Act and industrially applied (over 50 times), copyright lapses.
This ensures short-term design monopoly doesn't undermine statutory balances. A. Sreedevi VS Wooltop Design Private Limited - 2017 Supreme(Mad) 4215
While strict, exceptions exist:
In footwear infringement suits, courts protect essential features if prima facie copied, despite prior art defenses. Relaxo Footwears Limited VS Aqualite Industries Pvt. Limited - 2021 Supreme(Del) 2445
To navigate these limits:
In cancellation proceedings, like cigarette pack designs, lack of prior publication and aesthetic distinctiveness upheld registration. ITC Limited VS Controller of Patents and Designs - 2017 Supreme(Cal) 119
Under the Designs Act, 2000, protection is generally confined to aesthetic features appealing to the eye, excluding purely functional or mechanical ones. This balance fosters creativity without monopolizing utility. Sonani Industries Pvt. Ltd. VS Prime Diamond Tech - 2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 474In The Matter Of : UST Global (Singapore) Pte Ltd VS Controller of Patents and Designs - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 599
Key Takeaways:- Focus on visual novelty for registration success.- Functionality bars protection unless eye appeal dominates.- Leverage case law like Microfibres for arguments.- Consider copyrights cautiously due to Section 15 overlaps.
Stay ahead in IP strategy—regularly review designs against these principles. For tailored guidance, reach out to IP experts.
#DesignsAct2000, #IPLawIndia, #AestheticDesigns
under the DESIGNS ACT , 2000. ... (supra) makes it evident that so long as design of article is not functional, it can possess aesthetic appeal and be protected under the DESIGNS ACT , 2000. ... Applying the well settled test of functionality, prima facie, the Plaintiff’s design was registrable as design under Section 2(d) of DESIGNS ACT , 2000. ... The #HL_ST....
The enactment of the Designs Act in 2000, established a distinct protection regime for designs in India. ... It primarily contended that the Proprietary Engineering Drawings, for which Inox claimed copyright protection, fell within the definition of a ‘design’ under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000 (Designs Act). ... If the design is registered under the #H....
Act “capable of being registered” under the Designs Act’ 2000. ... On a conjoint reading of Section 15 of the Copyright Act and Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, the plaintiff would be denied of the protection of the Copyright Act in two situations: (i) drawing with respect to which the copyright has been claimed is a “design” registered under the Designs Act’ 2000#HL_EN....
There is no aesthetic element involved in the registered design. The Act specifically excludes designs which are purely mechanical devices. It is also contended that the registered design is a published prior design. ... In order to protect their distinctive design, the petitioner no.1 applied for registration of its article under the provision of the Designs Act, 2000 (the Act). Such application ....
Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000, reads thus: (d) “design” means only the features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or composition of lines or colours applied to any article whether in two dimensional or three dimensional or in both forms, by any industrial process ... It is appropriate to refer to Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000 as the respondent has rejected the patent application of the appellant on the ground that the invent....
of the Designs Act, 2000? OPD (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction as per sub clause (a) of the prayer clause? ... In the present case, it cannot be said, that the suit design has no aesthetic appeal. Clearly, the suit design has aesthetic appeal even vis- a-vis prior art and vis-`-vis other known and commonly seen designs of pressure cookers. ... of the Designs Act, 2....
205, 209 (2000) (Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act “embrace[s] not just word marks . . . but also ‘trade dress’ . . . [which] encompass[es] the design of a product.”). ... Because the Disc Golf factors are not easily applied to aesthetic features, in aesthetic trade dress cases we have 14 MOLDEX-METRIC V. MCKEON PRODUCTS “focused our analysis on the Qualitex language—whether the protection of the design would put competitors at a disadvantage.” .....
Act, 2000. ... The protection under the Designs Act is granted only to those designs which have an aesthetic value or otherwise appeal to the eye. There may be, however, cases where the design while fulfilling the test of being appealing to the eye, is also functional. (Mohan Lal v. ... In any event, the Controller is a final authority to decide as to whether the said design is capable of registration under the Designs#HL_....
Special provision regarding copyright in designs registered or capable of being registered under the [Designs Act, 2000 (16 of 2000)]-(1) Copyright shall not subsist under this Act in any design which is registered under the [Designs Act, 2000 (16 of 2000)]. ... ... (2) Copyright in any design, which is capable of being registered under the [Designs A....
2009 (40) PTC 519 held that if the design is registered under the DESIGNS ACT , the Design would lose its copyright protection under the COPYRIGHT ACT . ... (2) Copyright in any design, which is capable of being registered under the [***] [ DESIGNS ACT , 2000 (16 of 2000)], but which has not been so registered, shall cease as soon as any article to which the design has been ap....
It is further stated that the features cited in the Design Registration Certificates filed by the plaintiff are subject to prior art and are thus not subject to protection under Section 5(1) of the Designs Act, 2000. It is stated that well established position of law is that slight variations in a design do not qualify it for registration/protection. Further, it is stated that it is settled law that novelty in a design registration certificate must be construed in a narrow sense. In fact, the adoption is dishonest and malafide.(iii)
The protection under the Designs Act is granted only to those designs which have an aesthetic value or otherwise appeal to the eye. There may be, however, cases where the design while fulfilling the test of being appealing to the eye, is also functional. 202108 is not a mere mechanical device and thus qualifies as a design." (emphasis added) (Mohan Lal v. Sona Paint & Hardwares, AIR 2013 Del 143: 2013 (55) PTC 61 (Del) and Micolube India Limited v. Rakesh Kumar, 2013 (55) PTC 61 (Del) (FB) at p.75).
4. The learned counsel for the original defendants 1, 3 to 6 submitted that the suit itself is not maintainable in view of Section 15 of the Copyright Act. According to the original defendants, any Artistic work by industrial application transforms into a commercially marketable article, its designs falls within the domain of the Designs Act and the protection to the design founded upon the artistic work is limited by Section 15 of the Copyright Act, and the provisions of the Designs Act, 2000. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the suit is not maintainable.....
(Mohan Lal v. Sona Paint & Hardwares, AIR 2013 Del 143: 2013 (55) PTC 61 (Del) and Micolube India Limited v. Rakesh Kumar, 2013 (55) PTC 61 (Del) (FB) at p.75. The protection under the Designs Act is granted only to those designs which have an aesthetic value or otherwise appeal to the eye. There may be, however, cases where the design while fulfilling the test of being appealing to the eye, is also functional. This is the essence of section 2(d) of 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
