The importance of the design of a product has been growing over the decades and necessitated a separate law on the subject in 2000. A certain product may be perfectly functional but when it is displayed in a department store along with similar goods manufactured by rival companies, its appearance matters a lot.
It is not just the practical efficiency of the product that a customer looks for these days but also its novelty, looks and packaging. Therefore, legal battles have been fought over knife handles, pen holders, toys and bracelets.
Though the laws on patents and copyrights are well developed, the case law on designs is very thin in this country. Perhaps the full-length judgment on the Designs Act 2000 delivered a few weeks ago by the Supreme Court is the first of its kind.
In this case, Bharat Glass Tubes Ltd vs Gopal Glass Works Ltd, the court had to cite foreign decisions on this subject. High courts have dealt with a few cases on designs but it was with reference to the old Designs Act 1911.
In this case, Gopal Glass claimed to be the creator of new and original industrial designs applied by a mechanical process to glass sheets. German-made rollers were used to give the glass sheets eye-catching shapes, configuration, ornamental patterns and shades of colour.
The design was registered under the Act and was to remain valid for 10 years. Some time later, Bharat Glass allegedly imitated the design. Gopal Glass then obtained an injunction against it from the district court.
As a counterblast, Bharat Glass approached the Controller of Designs contending that the design was not new and it had already been published in this country and abroad. The Controller then cancelled the registration of Gopal Glass. The dispute moved to the Calcutta high court which set aside the Controller's order. The rivals moved to the Supreme Court, where the high court order was upheld.
The new Designs Act was passed in view of the considerable progress made in the field of science and technology. Its 'objects and reasons' say: "The legal system of the protection of industrial designs requires to be made more efficient to ensure effective protection to registered designs.
It is also required to promote design activity to promote the design element in an article of production". The Act has tried to define 'design' and 'original' in long paragraphs, but in view of the technical nature of the terms and constant scientific development, disputes of recurring nature are inevitable. The clash of the glass manufacturers is a clear example.
The crucial question to be asked to arrive at a decision is whether the design is new and original. The burden to prove that it is not is on the person who complains to the controller against a design.
In this case, the Supreme Court felt that that burden has not been discharged. There was no evidence to show that the designs existed in India before the registration. The German company only manufactured the rollers which could be used to make designs in glass, rexine, leather and other products. The Indian company did not reproduce the existing designs but registered a new one, according to the court.
The Bombay high court dealt with the dispute over the cap design between the two coconut kings, Marico Ltd vs Raj Oil, producers of Parachute and Cocoraj respectively. The court did not grant injunction against Cocoraj. The Delhi high court has delivered two decisions under the old law.
The first was Domestic Appliances vs Globe Super Parts. The row was ignited by the design of a gas tandoor called Sizzler. The facts were similar to the glass design controversy and the company that copied the design could not succeed in cancelling the registration.
The second case was Wimco Ltd vs Meena Match Industries. In this case, the burning question was the design on the match boxes. The court ruled that Wimco could not claim a monopoly of the design.
What is new and original? The Calcutta high court, in Gammeter vs Controller, has stated that a design, in order to be new and original, need not be so in the sense of never having been seen before.
There might be novelty in applying an old thing to a new use. The dispute was about a metal band attached to a wrist watch. Though its shape was not original, its application to a watch was for a different purpose.
With affluenza affecting consumers globally, battles over designs are sure to grow intense in future.
