Industrial_design

1. Industrial DesignIndustrial Design

2. 1
Evolution of CompetitionEvolution of Competition
Traditional product
Technology
Pricing of product
Quality of Product
Design differential

3. “When companies are competing
at equal price
&
functionality
Design is the only differential
that matters”
–– Mark Dziersk,Mark Dziersk, quoted inquoted in
TIME MagazineTIME Magazine

4. What is an industrial DesignWhat is an industrial Design
It is a new or original idea in
relation to the features of
shape, configuration, Pattern,
Ornament, Composition of lines
or colours or combination
thereof applied to any article by
an industrial process

5. It signifies something solid (in
three dimensions) where an
idea is incorporated into the
article
Example - feeding bottle
Shape and configurationShape and configuration

6.  It relates to something two dimensional
Example- engraving on metal or like
ornamentation on carpet by various
geometric figures in combination of color
etc.
 Mere painting of natural scenes or like on
plain paper- is not an industrial design
Pattern, OrnamentPattern, Ornament

7. Business (Idea) point of view:
 Make your product appealing to consumers
 Customize products in order to target different
customers (e.g. Swatch)
 Develop the brand (e.g. Apple ’s « Think
Different » strategy; i Pod)
Industrial DesignsIndustrial Designs

8. Department of IP &P covers
The Patents Act, 1970 (as amended in 2005)
The Patents Rules, 2003 (as amended in 2006)
The Designs Act, 2000The Designs Act, 2000
The Designs Rules, 2001 (as amended in 2008)The Designs Rules, 2001 (as amended in 2008)
The Trade Marks Act 1999
The Trade Marks Rules 2002
The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration &
Protection) Act, 1999
The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration &
Protection) Rules, 2002,
Department of Education covers
The Copyrights Act 1957 (amended in 1999)
Legislative Framework of IPLegislative Framework of IP
AdministrationAdministration

9.  Exclusive right to apply design to the
article in the class in which design is
registered.
 Better protection and can sue for piracy of
design.
 Licensing of design as legal property for
consideration or royalty.
Benefits of RegistrationBenefits of Registration

10.  Scope of definition of terms ‘Article’ &
‘Design’ enlarged
 Addition of definition of the term ‘Original’
 Introduction of delegation of powers to
Examiners & other Officers by Controller
 Codification of non- registerable Designs
 Substitution of classification system
(Locarno classification)
Designs Act, 2000 - Salient FeaturesDesigns Act, 2000 - Salient Features

11.  Removal of secrecy period of two years for
a registered Design
 Public inspection available after notification
 Rights of Registered Proprietor defined
 Provision of Restoration of Lapsed Design
 Electronic Register of Design
Designs Act, 2000 - Salient FeaturesDesigns Act, 2000 - Salient Features

12.  Initial term of protection for 10 years,
extendable by 5 years on request
 Provision for preferring Appeal on the
Controller’s order before High Court
 Substitution of Applicants before registration
of design
 Additional grounds for Cancellation of design
Designs Act, 2000 - Salient FeaturesDesigns Act, 2000 - Salient Features

13.  Registration of assignments/transfer of right
made mandatory
 Penalty for piracy of registered design
enhanced
 Inclusion of Paris Convention Countries
apart from Commonwealth Countries for
priority
Designs Act, 2000 - Salient FeaturesDesigns Act, 2000 - Salient Features

14. Sec 2(d) Design:
Means only features of shape,
configuration, pattern, ornament or
compositions of lines or colours applied toapplied to
any articleany article whether in two or three
dimensional or both by any industrial
process or means whether manual,
mechanical or chemical, separate or
combined,………
The Designs Act, 2000 - DefinitionsThe Designs Act, 2000 - Definitions

15. Sec 2(d) Design:
……… which in the finished article appeal
to and judged solely by eye but does not
include any mode or principle of
construction and does not include any
Trade Mark or Property Mark and Artistic
work as defined in clause (c) of section 2
of the Copyright Act’1957.
The Designs Act, 2000 - DefinitionsThe Designs Act, 2000 - Definitions

16. Artistic workArtistic work means-
(i) A painting, a sculpture, a drawing
(diagram, map, chart or plan) or engraving
or photograph……
(ii) Any work of architecture and
(iii) Any other work of artistic craftsmanship.
Such work is not a subject matter of anis not a subject matter of an
industrial designindustrial design
Sec 2 (c ) – Copyright ActSec 2 (c ) – Copyright Act

17. Sec 2(a) Article:
Means any article of manufacture and
any substance, artificial or partly
artificial and partly natural and includes
any part of article capable of being made
and sold separately
The Designs Act, 2000 - DefinitionsThe Designs Act, 2000 - Definitions

18. Sec.4 - A design which-
(a) is not new or original;not new or original; or
(b) has been disclosed to the publichas been disclosed to the public any where in India or
in any other country by publication in tangible form or
by use or in any other way prior to the filing date, or
where applicable, the priority date of the application for
registration; or
(c) is not significantly distinguishablenot significantly distinguishable from,known designs
or combination of known designs; or
(d )(d ) comprises or containscomprises or contains scandalous or obscene matterscandalous or obscene matter
shall not be registeredshall not be registered
Prohibition of registration of certain designsProhibition of registration of certain designs

19. A Design should:
 Be New or Original
 Be Distinguishable from known designs
 Be applied to an article
 Not be disclosed to public in any form
 Appeal to eye
 Not comprise of obscene matter
 Not be contrary to public order or morality
Requirements for RegistrationRequirements for Registration

20.  Novelty is judged solely by eye w.r.t.
external appearance of the finished article
 Neither constructional details nor utility of
article are relevant for registration
 Novelty may reside in its application to
article
 Absolute novelty- i.e. Not publicly known
or used in India or elsewhere.
New or OriginalNew or Original

21. In relation to design means:
originating from the author of such design
and includes the cases which though old in
themselves yet are new in their application
[sec 2(g)]
OriginalOriginal

22.  When design to applied to the inner portion of the
article not visible or noticeable in finished article.
 Principle or mode of construction of the article
 Building and structures
 Sole functional features
 Part of an article not sold separately
 Variation commonly used in trade
 Stamps, Labels, Tokens, Medals, Trade Marks ,
Property Marks, Cards, Cartoons.
 Mere change in size.
 Designs contrary to public order or morality or
scandalous
 Computer chip, Integrated circuit designs
What are not RegistrableWhat are not Registrable

23.  Calendar, certificates, forms, greeting cards,
leaflets, maps, building plan, medals
 Mere mechanical contrivance
 Basic shape, variations commonly used in the
trade
 Mere workshop alteration
 Flags, emblems, or signs of any country,
computer icons
The following articles are not registrableThe following articles are not registrable

24.  Applicant : Applicant means any individual or legal
entity.
 Application : One application in prescribed form for
one design in one class with prescribed fee.
 Representation: Four sets of Representation with the
different views of the article for clear
understanding the nature of article.
 Declaration :- Statement of novelty and disclaimers.
 Power of Attorney : (If required).
Filing RequirementsFiling Requirements

25. KOLKATA
H.O.
Receiving & Examination
Receiving Center Receiving CenterReceiving Center
Delhi Mumbai Chennai
Filing of Design ApplicationFiling of Design Application

26.  Application form 1 with requisite fee of
Rs. 1,000/-
 Four sets of Representation sheets in
durable paper of A4 size, pasted with the
photographs/drawings of the article from
different angles.
 Power of attorney (if required)
 Priority document (for convention Appln.)
Particulars required for applicationParticulars required for application

27. Contd …

28. Contd. from previous slide…

29.  A4 Size white durable paper
 Sheet nos. To be mentioned in each
sheet
 Photographs/line diagrams/ computer
graphics of the article
 Name of the views
 Statement of novelty
 Disclaimer
 Signature of the applicant/ agent
 DATE
Preparation of the Representation SheetPreparation of the Representation Sheet

30. (1) STATEMENT OF NOVELTY
(2)DISCLAIMER
Signature of Applicant
Name of the Applicant
XYZ, PVT.LTD.
Date :-
No. of sheet - 05
Sheet No.- 01
Side view
Representation SheetRepresentation Sheet

31. Name of the Applicant
XYZ, PVT.LTD.
No. of sheet
Sheet No.-

32. Novelty resides in the shape and
configuration of the “Pressure cooker” as
illustrated.
Or
Novelty resides in the shape and
configuration particularly in the portions
marked ‘A’ & ‘B’ of the “Pressure cooker”
as illustrated.
Statement of NoveltyStatement of Novelty

33.  No claim is made by virtue of this registration to any right to
the use as a trade mark of what is shown in the
representations.
 No claim is made by virtue of the registration in respect of
any mechanical or there action of the mechanism whatever
or in respect of any mode or principle of construction of the
article.
 No claim is made by virtue of this registration to any right to
the exclusive use of the words, letters, numerals, flags,
crowns, etc. appearing in the design.
Statement of DisclaimerStatement of Disclaimer

34. Example of RepresentationExample of Representation

35. The novelty resides in the shape & configuration of the 'CHAIR' as illustrated.
No claim is made by virtue of this registration in respect of any mechanical or
other action of any mechanism whatever or in respect of any mode or principle
of construction of the Article.
No claim is made by virtue of this registration to any right to the exclusive use
of the words, letters, numbers, or trade marks appearing in the representation.
Dated: Signature of the applicant/agent
(Name of the Signatory)
(SPECIMEN OF REPRESENTATION SHEETS)

36. (SPECIMEN OF REPRESENTATION SHEETS)
The novelty resides in the shape & configuration of the 'CHAIR' as illustrated.
No claim is made by virtue of this registration in respect of any mechanical or
other action of any mechanism whatever or in respect of any mode or principle
of construction of the Article.
No claim is made by virtue of this registration to any right to the exclusive use
of the words, letters, numbers, or trade marks appearing in the representation.
Dated: Signature of the applicant/agent
(Name of the Signatory)
RIGHT SIDE VIEW LEFT SIDE VIEW

37. No. of
entry
On What possible Form
No.
Fee (Rs.)
1 On application for registration of Design
under Section 5 & 44
1 1000.00
2 On claim under Section 8(1 ) to proceed as
an applicant or joint applicant
2 500.00
3 On application for extension of copyright
under Section 11(2)
3 2000.00
4 On Application for Restoration of lapsed
design under Section 12(2)
4 1000.00
5 Additional fee for Restoration --- 1000.00
6 Inspection of Registered design under
Section 17(1)
5 500.00
7 On request for information of design when
registration No. is given under Section 18.
6 500.00
8 On request for information of design when
registration No. not given .
7 1000.00
THE FIRST SCHEDULE FEESTHE FIRST SCHEDULE FEES
Contd …

38. No. of
entry
On What possible Form
No.
Fee (Rs.)
9 On application for cancellation of design under
Section 19
8 1500.00
10 Notice of intended exhibition or publication of
an unregistered design under Section 21
9 500.00
11 Application for registration of a document in
Register of Designs under Section 30(3):
(i) In respect of one Design;
(ii) For each additional Design
10
500.00
200.00
12 One application for entry of name of proprietor
or part proprietor in Register of Designs under
Section 30:
(i) In respect of one Design;
(ii) For each additional Design
11
500.00
200.00
13 On application for entry of mortgage or license
in Register of designs under Section 30:
(i) In respect of one Design;
(ii) For each additional Design
12
500.00
200.00
(Contd. from previous slide…)THE FIRST SCHEDULE FEESTHE FIRST SCHEDULE FEES

39. No. of
entry
On What possible Form
No.
Fee (Rs.)
14 Application for entry of notification of a
document in the Register of designs under
Section 30 and Rule 37:
(i) In respect of one Design;
(ii) For each additional Design
13
500.00
200.00
15 On request for correction of clerical error under
Section 29
14 500.00
16 On request for certificate under Section 26
and Rule 42
15 500.00
17 On application for certified copy of
Registered design Under Section 17(2)
16 500.00
18 On application for rectification of Register of
design Under Section 31
17 500.00
19 On application for extension of time for filing
priority Document under Rule 15.
18 200.00
(per month)
20 On Notice of opposition under Rule 40 19 100.00
(Contd. from previous slide…)THE FIRST SCHEDULE FEESTHE FIRST SCHEDULE FEES

40. No. of
entry
On What possible Form
No.
Fee (Rs.)
21 Notice of intention to attend hearing under
Rule 29 and 40
20 500.00
22 Form for authorization of agent or other
person.
21 ----
23 On request to alter name or address or
address for Service in the Register of design
under Rule 31.
22 200.00
24 On request for entries of two addresses in
the Register of Design.
23 200.00
25 On petition under Rule 46 for amendment of
any document
--- 500.00
26 On petition under Rule 47 for amendment of
any document
--- 500.00
27 Inspection of Register of Design under Rule
38 (in respect of each design).
--- 250.00
(Contd. from previous slide…)THE FIRST SCHEDULE FEESTHE FIRST SCHEDULE FEES

41. STAGES FROM FILING TO REGISTRATIONSTAGES FROM FILING TO REGISTRATION
Abandoned
ExaminationFilling of
Application
Numbering &
Dating of
Application
Noncomplianc
e of Objection
(s)
Communication
of Objection (s)
Removal of
Objection (s)
Hearing if
objection (s)
is /are
contested
RefusalRefusal
Re-
ExaminationAppeal to
High Court
Waiving /
removal of
Objection (s)
Acceptance
In case of
allowance of
appeal
Notification in
the Official
Gazette
Issue of Certificate

42. Application of Design in Industries
Small Scale Industries:
 Shoe, Chappal, Pen, Textile Goods, Carpet, Wall Clock,
Ceramic Tiles, Plumbing Equipments, Sanitary Goods,
Package, Chairs, Tables, Photo - Frame, Tiffin Box,
Water Jug, Casserole, Water Bottle, Bags, Suitcase,
Flower Vase, Ash-Tray, Tooth-Brush, Toy, Fan etc.
Medium Scale Industries:
 Washing Machine, Refrigerator, Television, Computer,
A.C. Machine, Wrist Watch, Mixer-Grinder, Vacuum
Cleaner

43. More articlesMore articles
 Textiles dress materials
 ,mobiles set,
 cycle,
 electrical appliances,
 containers ,
 Sports goods
 other appliances

44. Consumer Products

45. Pharmaceutical Product

46. Textile & Jewellery

47. Shape & Configuration signify something solidShape & Configuration signify something solid
where an idea has been incorporated into thewhere an idea has been incorporated into the
article.article.
Contd.
Example with a toothbrush

48. Pattern or ornament or composition of colour /Pattern or ornament or composition of colour /
lines relates to something two dimensional.lines relates to something two dimensional.
Contd.
Example with a toothbrush

49. Contd.
When a figure, showing the feature of the design ofWhen a figure, showing the feature of the design of
an article, is drawn on a paper it will be regarded asan article, is drawn on a paper it will be regarded as
if design has been applied to the article sought to beif design has been applied to the article sought to be
registered.registered.
Example with a toothbrush

50. A new shape applied to toothbrush whichA new shape applied to toothbrush which
produces a new visual appearance on theproduces a new visual appearance on the
article.article.
Contd.
Example with a toothbrush

51. Design means a conception or suggestion or ideaDesign means a conception or suggestion or idea
of a shape or pattern which can be applied to anof a shape or pattern which can be applied to an
article by industrial process or means.article by industrial process or means.
Contd.
Example with a toothbrush

52. Any mode or principle of construction or operationAny mode or principle of construction or operation
or anything which is in substance a mereor anything which is in substance a mere
mechanical device, would not be registerablemechanical device, would not be registerable
design.design.
Contd.
Example with a toothbrush

53. The features of the design in the finished articleThe features of the design in the finished article
should appeal to and are judged solely by theshould appeal to and are judged solely by the
eye.eye.
Contd.
Example with a toothbrush

54. The design should be applied or applicable toThe design should be applied or applicable to
any article by any industrial process.any article by any industrial process.
Contd.
Example with a toothbrush

55. Designs of artistic nature like paintings,Designs of artistic nature like paintings,
sculptures and the like which are not producedsculptures and the like which are not produced
in bulk by any industrial process are excludedin bulk by any industrial process are excluded
from registration under the Act.from registration under the Act.
Example with a toothbrush

56. OVERLAP OF DESIGN,
COPYRIGHT & TRADE MARK

57. Design is for aesthetic appearance. Anything functional is
not registrable as a design
Copyright in a design comes to an end if the work has
industrial application and is reproduced more than 50 times
Is there diff. between copyright in a design and copyright in
a drawing. Yes.
Copyright & Design

58. Confusion is worse with Trade mark definition being
amended
Shape is also a trade mark – But articles like dresses,
sculpture etc., cannot come in trade marks.
However commercial products have more overlaps in
protection.

59.  As per Copinger and Skone James on Copyright, a design is, in broad
terms, the plan or scheme for the appearance of an article (or a part of
an article).
 It primarily concerns with what an article looks like or is intended to look
like.
 It is not concerned with how an article performs its function. The design
of an article may be recorded in any form including the written
description, sketch, drawing, photograph or it could actually be embodied
in the article itself. “Design” has also been defined as the design of any
aspect of the shape or configuration (whether internal or external) of the
whole or part of an article.
Copinger & Skone James on Copyright, 15th Edn., Vol. 1, pg. 730
Design

60.  Infringement in the context of Indian Textiles, Apparels and Life Style
Industry:
Indian Textiles:
 If artistic patterns are drawn up on a piece of cloth to be used for any
purpose, including but not limited to for instance, making of garments,
bed sheets, sofa covers, table cloths, etc., then the artistic patterns
printed on the piece of cloth are protected as copyrights.
 On the other hand, if a designer of clothes creates a new pattern of
garment to be used as a fashionable attire, then the sketch/ drawing
that is drawn of the pattern of the garment is protected as a copyright.
Infringement

61.  However, once the idea of the creative pattern is implemented on the
piece of cloth, then the same may be protected as a design right.
 If, the intention of the designer is to ensure that only one piece of the
garment is manufactured, then the same could also be protected as
the artistic work imprinted on the piece of cloth having copyrights.
 Alternatively, if the designer’s intention is to produce several
thousands of garments in different scheme of colours, etc., then the
intention of the designer is to use the said design in the industry.
Accordingly, the latter form of use of the same material may be
considered to be a design.
 There is an ongoing debate on the issue and a lot depends on the
manner, in which the author of the work intends to use the work.
Infringement

62. Indian Cases

63. Tahiliani Design Private Ltd. vs. Renu Tandon & Anr.
C.S. (OS) No. 2222 of 2008 – Before Hon’ble Delhi High Court
Cases

64.  Allegation that the Defendants’ garments were copies of the
garments designed and crafted by the Plaintiff
 The said garments were supposed to be developed, designed
and crafted by the plaintiff as a part of their collection for the
year 2006
 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 21.10.2008
granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction
Tahiliani Design Private Ltd. vs. Renu Tandon & Anr.
C.S. (OS) No. 2222 of 2008 – Before Hon’ble Delhi High Court
Cases

65.  Defendant served notice.
 Application for vacation of stay moved claiming that both
designs are separate.
 The impugned prints are generic Jamawar Prints
 Matter is sub-judice – Referred to Mediation
Tahiliani Design Private Ltd. vs. Renu Tandon & Anr.
C.S. (OS) No. 2222 of 2008 – Before Hon’ble Delhi High Court
Cases

66.  Allegation of infringement of
copyright as the defendant used the
dress in a movie which was worn by
an actress
 Importance of costumes worn by
actors and actresses in a film play
special role and serve purpose of
promotion of the movie
 Held that all kinds of clothes worn
by actors cannot be stated as Fair
Use permitted under sec 52 (1) (u).
Suneet Varma Design Pvt. Ltd. Vs Jas Kirat Singh Narula &
Anr. [2007 (34) PTC 81 (Del)]
Cases

67.  Case relating to design of upholstery
 Plaintiff claimed to have copyright in the artistic work applied to
upholstery design
 Did not have a registered design however they claimed a
copyright in the drawings
Microfibres Inc vs. Girdhar and Co. and Ors. : 2006(32)
PTC 157 (Del)
Cases

68.  Question was whether without a registered design, the plaintiff could
protect the same and whether the copyright was lost because of
more than 50 reproduction of the said upholstery fabric design
 The Court although upholding that the motives etc. of the plaintiff
was artistic and also holding that the defendants had copied it, on a
legal and technical argument that more than 50 reproduction had
been made, refused to grant injunction
Microfibres Inc vs. Girdhar and Co. and Ors. : 2006(32)
PTC 157 (Del)
Cases

69.  Plaintiff claimed an injunction on the ground that his designs of
shoe soles had distinctive shape and configuration
 During the course of argument, it was revealed that the plaintiff
himself had copied designs from Bata India Ltd.
 Thus Court had held that the plaintiff himself being a pirater, no
injunction can be granted in favour of the plaintiff
1997(17) PTC 268: Baldev Singh vs. Shriram Footwear
Cases

70.  Case under the Designs Act, 2000
 Plaintiff had claimed that defendants copied the design “Stylush”,
“Corel” and “Ultra” in respect of bath tubs
 Defendant had not established that he had been selling bath tubs
prior to the registration obtained by plaintiff in respect of similar
designs
 Plaintiff had a registered design
 Sufficient resemblance between the two designs and the plaintiff’s
design was protected
Hindustan Sanitaryware & Industries Ltd. vs. Dip Crafts
Industries: 2003(26) PTC163 (Del)
Cases

71.  Judgment of full bench of Delhi High Court
 Holds primarily that in a case filed for infringement of a design, the
defendant would be entitled to take a defence that the registration
of the design itself was incorrect
 Various grounds can be taken for claim that the registration was
granted wrongly, namely, that the design is not new or original or
unique
 If any of the grounds can be proved, then the fact that the design is
registered by itself, does not come to the aid of the plaintiff
 Registration can be a proof at the first stage but it has to be
established that this was not copied design and that it is a new and
original
Metro Plastic Industries (Regd.) vs. M/s. Galaxy Footwear
New Delhi: 2000(20) PTC 1
Cases

72.  Suit filed alleging infringement of design in respect of a bottle
which is being used by plaintiff for packing hair oil
 Court found plaintiff’s bottle to be common bottle used by several
other companies
 Bottles were held to be in use much prior to the registration of the
design of the plaintiff
 No peculiar feature of the bottle registered as a design and the
plaintiff had not pin pointed any novelty in the design of the bottle
 Held that for validly of the registered design there must be some
novelty and originality in the design sought to be protected and it
must have not been pre-published
Dabur India Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors 2008 (37) PTC 227
Cases

73.  Suit filed for the infringement as well as passing off of design in
Toy Scooter
 The defendant pleaded the prior publication of the design
 Another defense taken by the defendant was that the defendant
too was having the registration of the design
 Court held that there were various dissimilarities in the prior
published design
 The design of the defendant was identical to the design of the
plaintiff
 Hence the defendant is not protected even on account of the
registration having been obtained by it which admittedly is the
subsequent registration
Vikas Jain Vs. Aftab Ahmad And Ors, 2008 (37) PTC 288 (Del)
Cases

74.  Suit for infringement of a design, where the defendant had filed a
cancellation petition with the Controller of Designs
 Proceedings pending before the controller of Design who had
heard the arguments in the cancellation petition before him and the
order had been reserved
 Defendant had also sought the transfer of the cancellation
proceedings from the Controller to the Hon’ble Delhi High Court
 Hon’ble High Court declined to stay the proceedings pending
before the Controller and to order for the transfer of those
proceedings as there was no provision for the transfer of the
cancellation proceedings under the Act
Reckitt Benckiser Australia Pty Ltd. And Anr Vs. R. B.
Impex And Ors 2008 (37) PTC 262 (Del)
Cases

75.  Single Judge of this Court held that once a design was registered,
prima facie, it was only the registered proprietor, who could take
benefit of the registered design
 The Court then negatived the contention that even if a false plea about
the validity of registration was taken up by a Defendant, no interim
injunction should be granted.
 The Court went on to hold that the contention that the design had no
novelty was a valid defence to the Suit and could be raised to
challenge the validity of the registration.
 It further held that this did not have any bearing at the initial stage and
that these were matters to be decided on evidence.
 It must be mentioned that after so holding the Court, went into the
merits and held that in that case it had not been shown that the design
was previously published
Sat Pal Singh Vs. S.P. Engineering Works - 1982(2) PTC 193
Cases

76.  Faber Castell “Textliner”.
 A dark green body
 Unique cap of same colour as colour of
ink
 Gold lettering on green body
Regd design.
Prior Publication could be through prior
documents or some other prior user.
Injunction granted
Faber Castell Vs. Pikpen - 2003 PTC 538
Cases

77.  Suitcases made by plaintiff copied
by defendant
 The entire range was copied
 Claim was based on drawings &
copyright
 No registered design
 No protection granted as it is
manufactured industrially more
than 50 times.
Samsonite Vs. Vijay Sales 1998 PTC 372
Cases

78.  Design of photo-frames
 Registered design
 Defendant no.2 was an employee of
plaintiff
 Injunction granted protecting the
copyright in the design of photo-
frames
Preeti Gupta Vs. Rajendra Prahladkar 2002 PTC 64
Cases

79. International Cases

80. RADELY GOWNS Ltd. v COSTAS SPYROU and BROKE v
SPINCERS DRESS DESIGN Ltd.(1975) FSR 455
 Plaintiff & defendant manufacture
ladies clothing.
 Copyright claimed in 3 stages of
Manufacturing Procedure viz.,
- design sketches,
- cutting patterns
- prototype garments

81.  Def argued
 Prototype is not work of
artis.crtms.
 No one author is involved
 Cutting patterns are
functional
 One of the sketches was
copied from earlier dress
 Dress could not
reproduce a sketch
 Stiffness was to be given
otherwise it is not a dress
 Delay
RADELY GOWNS Ltd. v COSTAS SPYROU and BROKE v
SPINCERS DRESS DESIGN Ltd.(1975) FSR 455

82.  Court Held:
 It is work of A.C
 Need not unite with one
author
 Dress can be a 3
dimensional reproduction
of a sketch
 Huge diff between the
earlier dress and new one,
hence plaintiff work is
original
RADELY GOWNS Ltd. v COSTAS SPYROU and BROKE v
SPINCERS DRESS DESIGN Ltd.(1975) FSR 455

83. BRIGID FOLEY Ltd. v ELLOT (1982) RPC 433
It has been observed that if there is a direct copying
from a garment which one person has designed and
produced by himself, doing all the cutting , stitching,
and so on, there might be a case for saying that there
would be a breach of doing that.

84. BERNSTEIN v SYDNEY MURRAY(1981) RPC 303
 The plaintiffs were owners of
copyright in certain sketches
for ladies’ garments in which
the garments were shown as
worn by ladies. They had
displayed garments made
from such sketches in
fashion shows and shop
windows. Defendants have
copied the dresses produced
from plaintiff’s sketches. It
was held that this constituted
infringement of copyright in
sketches.

85. BURKE and MARGOT BURKE Ltd. v SPINCERS
DRESS DESIGNS
(1936) CH D 400  The plaintiff’s alleged that
defendants had infringed the
copyright in the sketch
described as “ frock being
worn by a young lady ” It was
also alleged that there was
infringement of artistic
copyrights in dresses made
up by the plaintiff’s in
accordance with those
sketches, which dress
themselves were said to be
works of artistic
craftsmanship It was held
that thee was no
infringement of a sketch by a
frock.

86. In MERLET v MOTHERCARE Ltd
(1986) RPC 115
 The plaintiff made a prototype baby
cape for her child.
 The cape was subsequently
manufactured by the second plaintiff.
 The defendants copied the plaintiff’s
garments and made baby cape in
accordance with the copy.
 The plaintiff claiming the handmade
prototype garment as a work of
craftsmanship it was not a work of
artistic craftsmanship brought an
action for infringement of copyright.

87.  It was held that though the prototype
was a work of craftsmanship it was
not a work of artistic craftsmanship.
 It was held that in approaching the
question the garment has to be
considered by itself and neither as
worn nor as containing a baby.
 No aesthetic satisfaction unless
worn on the baby
 Action was dismissed. An appeal
against infringement of certain
drawings was dismissed.
In MERLET v MOTHERCARE Ltd
(1986) RPC 115

88. KOMESAROFF v MICKLE
(1988) RPC 204
 A product called (moving sand
pictures) comprising a mixture of
liquid, colored sands, and a layer
of air bubbles encased within two
glass panels was held not a work
of artistic craftsmanship.
 They are functional – not regd
design

89.  MERCANDISING CORPORATION v
HARPBOND(1983) FSR 32 P, 32 (Facial make-up
was not held a painting within the meaning of sec 3
of the U.K. copyright act.)
Cases

90. Ford Motor Co.1993 RPC 399
 Vehicle parts are not subject matter of design because’ they have no
value in commerce except as part of a vehicle
 Mirrors, seats, etc., were capable of registration as substitution was
possible without affecting shape of the vehicle.
 The distinction that seems to have been drawn is that there are several
parts which are mostly hidden and never seen, such parts cannot be
registered as designs.
 However, parts and their circuits if in drawing form are artistic works

91. George Hensher Ltd s. Restawile Upholstery
1975 RPC 31
 Upholstered chairs & settees.
 One prototype was evolved – chairs were copied from it and
sold
 Def. copied the chairs and hence the prototype
 Trial Court granted injunction. Appeal court dismissed the
injunction. HL refused protection

92. George Hensher Ltd s. Restawile Upholstery
1975 RPC 31
 Artistic craftsmanship need not necessarily mean “work of art”.
 The product may be a commercial success but need not be of
Art craftsmanship

93. Merchandising Corpn Vs. Harpbond
1983 FSR 32
 Adam from the pop group Adam &
Ants
 New look for himself with Red-Indian
face markings
 Two red lines in grease paint, light
blue line in between, heart over left
eyebrow & a beauty spot
 Def. made a poster of it & made a
portrait & superimposed new look over
an old poster
 In infringement action court held that
this is not a painting and hence not
protectable.

94. Animal Fair Inc., Vs. Amfesco Inds
227 USPQ 817 (1985)
 Novelty slippers
 Resembles a bear’s foot or paw
 Slipper’s design features separate
from its utilitarian features, incl.
impractical width of sole, shape of
sole, profile of slipper, toes which
are unrelated to function and
copyrightable.
 Injunction granted.

95. Technological advancement made the job of
the creator easy
………it also made the job of the copier easy.
Consciousness in IPR is the only way to
prevent the latter.
ConclusionConclusion