Industrial Design Registration Procedures.
1. Introduction to Industrial Design
An industrial design refers to the aesthetic or ornamental aspect of an article, such as its shape, configuration, pattern, or composition of lines or colors applied to a product. It gives the product a unique look but does not protect the functional aspects.
Legal protection is provided under the Designs Act, 2000 (India). Registration confers the exclusive right to use the design and prevent others from copying or imitating it.
2. Eligibility Criteria for Registration
To register an industrial design, the following conditions must be satisfied:
Novelty / Newness:
The design should be new or original.
It should not have been published in India or elsewhere prior to filing.
Non-functionality / Ornamental Character:
Only aesthetic features are protected, not functional or technical aspects.
Applicable Articles:
The design must be capable of being applied to an industrial product.
3. Industrial Design Registration Procedure
Here’s a step-by-step guide for registering a design in India:
Step 1: Search for Existing Designs
Conduct a design search to ensure novelty.
Search can be done via Design Registry database maintained by the Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trademarks (CGPDTM).
Step 2: Filing the Application
Submit Form-1 (Application for Registration) along with:
Representations or drawings of the design.
Statement of novelty and originality.
Applicable fees.
Step 3: Examination of Application
The Design Office examines the application for:
Novelty
Registration requirements
Compliance with the Designs Act
Examination can take 12–18 months.
Step 4: Publication
If accepted, the design is published in the Official Journal of Designs.
Third parties have 6 months from the date of publication to file objections.
Step 5: Registration
After successful examination and clearance of objections, the design is registered.
Registration is valid for 10 years, extendable by 5 more years.
Step 6: Enforcement
The owner can prevent unauthorized use or imitation by initiating legal proceedings under the Designs Act.
4. Landmark Case Laws on Industrial Design in India
Here’s a detailed explanation of more than five important cases that shaped Indian industrial design law:
Case 1: Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Ghanshyamdas Saraf (1969 AIR SC 1378)
Facts: Tata Iron & Steel had registered a design for a steel sheet pattern. Another company started using a similar design.
Issue: Whether the defendant’s product infringed Tata’s design registration.
Held:
Court emphasized substantial similarity of the overall visual impression, not minor variations.
Copying of a registered design constitutes infringement.
Principle: Protection is visual and aesthetic, not functional; even partial imitation can infringe if the overall appearance is similar.
Case 2: S. S. Alloys Ltd. v. H & R Johnson (1973) 2 SCC 231
Facts: H & R Johnson claimed that S.S. Alloys copied tile designs.
Issue: Determining originality and infringement.
Held:
The court highlighted that originality is the cornerstone of design registration.
Mere modification of a small element is insufficient; the overall look must be distinct.
Principle: The design must be substantially different to avoid infringement.
Case 3: Asian Paints (India) Ltd. v. Gujarat Coatings (2006)
Facts: Dispute over industrial designs in paint packaging and decorative patterns.
Issue: Whether the competitor’s product infringed the registered designs.
Held:
Court reiterated that aesthetic appeal matters more than functional utility.
A design is infringing if it creates the same visual impression on an ordinary observer.
Principle: Emphasis on ordinary purchaser test for assessing design infringement.
Case 4: Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (1978)
Facts: Godrej challenged unauthorized copying of furniture designs.
Issue: Whether industrial designs without technical innovation can be protected.
Held:
Court recognized the exclusive right of the registered owner to prevent copying.
Functional features are not protected, only the ornamental aspects.
Principle: Designs Act safeguards visual originality, not technical function.
Case 5: Tata Motors Ltd. v. Design Bench (2005)
Facts: Concerned a car model design registration dispute.
Issue: Whether minor cosmetic changes in the vehicle design constitute infringement.
Held:
Even minor changes do not prevent infringement if the overall visual impression is similar.
Focus remains on consumer perception rather than minute details.
Principle: The “overall visual impact” test is decisive.
Case 6: Escorts Ltd. v. Minda Industries Ltd. (2010)
Facts: Tractor design dispute over registered grille patterns.
Issue: Determining the scope of protection.
Held:
Court ruled that replication of a core design feature constitutes infringement.
Even partial copying of a dominant aesthetic feature is actionable.
Principle: Protection covers distinctive and dominant features, not trivial details.
Case 7: Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. Videocon Industries Ltd. (2012)
Facts: Dispute over refrigerator design.
Issue: Whether changes in functional aspects avoid infringement.
Held:
Court clarified that changes in function do not negate design infringement.
What matters is visual similarity in terms of consumer perception.
Principle: Functional modification does not escape infringement; only original aesthetic design matters.
5. Key Takeaways from Cases
Industrial design protection focuses on aesthetic originality, not utility.
Overall visual impression is the test for infringement.
Minor alterations do not avoid infringement if the design is substantially similar.
Originality is strictly enforced; prior publication or obvious designs cannot be registered.
The ordinary purchaser’s perspective is crucial in determining infringement.
6. Conclusion
Industrial Design Registration is a powerful tool for companies and designers to protect their unique aesthetic creations.
The Indian legal framework, reinforced by these landmark cases, ensures:
Protection against copying
Recognition of originality
Emphasis on visual and consumer perception over minor functional details
RELATED Blog
comments