The case of design infringement before
The Court held this to be a clear case of design piracy and observed that the Defendant's design was an obvious imitation of the Plaintiff's design. It was observed that the Plaintiff is a holder of the valid registration for its cooker design, granted on
The Defendant on the other hand challenged that the suit design is bad for want of novelty and originality by contending that a handi, which is the subject matter of the design suit, is a well-known cooking vessel which has been used in
"The certificate of registration clearly states that novelty resides in the shape and configuration of the cooker. A glance at the cooker makes it apparent that it does not bear the conventional shape of a cooker but has a bulging mid/lower section, which is not ordinarily found in cookers. As such, the design of the plaintiff's cooker has clear distinctive eye appeal, which is one of the definitive criteria for entitlement to registration as a design."
It was further observed by Justice
The Plaintiff in this design infringement case had claimed that its design was registered since 2004, and thus argued that the striking similarity of the Defendant's design constituted a clear case of piracy.
The Defendant also took the plea of invalidity of the Plaintiff's design registration owing to its functional aspect. To this, the Court relying on the cases of
"This Court has, in its recent decision in
The Court thus rejected the Defendant's plea of invalidity of the Plaintiff's design registration, owing to its functional aspect.
Final Relief
Since the Plaintiff's design had expired in 2019 and no goods were seized, the Court did not pass any direction for delivery of goods. The suit was finally decreed by directing the Defendant to render accounts of the earnings made by the Defendant by sale of the pressure cookers bearing the impugned designs.
Author's Take
This case, while offering us the fundamental aspects of Design Law, also raises few questions worth pondering over – Can a design which derives its inspiration from a prevailing traditional practice, be allowed to claim registration and seek a monopoly over the design even with minor adjustments?
Another question that piques the curiosity of IPR enthusiasts, is – in the absence of strong evidence adduced by the Defendant, does the Plaintiff stand to get a premium to claim its IPR rights?
Case
TTK Prestige Ltd Versus
To view the original article click here
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
8th Floor,
Plot No. A-6, Sector 125,
Noida
201301
Tel: 120463900
URL: www.saikrishnaassociates.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2023 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source