Design Disputes Furniture India.
Furniture Design Disputes in India
Legal Framework
Furniture designs in India are protected under the Designs Act, 2000.
Key Provisions
Section 2(d): Defines “design” as features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornamentation applied to an article by any industrial process or means.
Section 15: Exclusive rights of registered designs—prevents unauthorized use, reproduction, or sale.
Section 22: Infringement occurs when a design is copied or substantially reproduced without permission.
Section 19: Registration of design confers exclusive rights for 15 years (initially 10 + 5 renewal).
Nature of Furniture Design Disputes
Copying of registered designs – competitors replicate unique designs.
Similarity disputes – minor differences, but overall impression is the same.
Ownership disputes – designer vs. manufacturer.
Unregistered designs – limited protection under common law or passing off.
Design vs. utility – functionality limits protection.
Important Case Laws
1. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. D’Decor (Delhi High Court, 2015)
Facts:
Godrej had a registered design for a modular office chair.
D’Decor produced a chair strikingly similar in shape and ornamentation.
Issues:
Whether D’Decor’s product infringed the registered design.
Whether minor differences were sufficient to avoid infringement.
Decision:
Court held that substantial reproduction of overall appearance is infringement, even if minor differences exist.
Injunction granted; damages awarded to Godrej.
Legal Principle:
In design disputes, overall visual impression matters more than minor details.
Registered designs enjoy strong protection under the Designs Act.
2. Featherlite Furniture Ltd. v. Local Manufacturer (Delhi High Court, 2012)
Facts:
Featherlite claimed that a local manufacturer copied their ergonomic office chair design.
The defendant argued functional necessity, not copying.
Decision:
Court held that design protection covers both aesthetic and non-functional ornamental features, but not purely functional features.
Infringement was found for aesthetic elements only.
Legal Principle:
Design law protects ornamental/visual aspects, not functional utility.
Distinction between design and patentable functional features is critical.
3. Godrej Interio v. Urban Living (Bombay High Court, 2018)
Facts:
Godrej Interio’s furniture design (sofa set) was registered.
Urban Living produced similar sofas; differences were in minor trims.
Decision:
Court relied on the “eye of an informed user” test, observing that ordinary customers would likely confuse the two designs.
Held it as infringement; injunction and damages awarded.
Legal Principle:
Infringement is assessed from the perspective of an informed user or buyer, not an expert.
4. Nilkamal Ltd. v. Local Supplier (Delhi High Court, 2014)
Facts:
Nilkamal’s popular plastic chair design was widely imitated.
Dispute arose over whether imitation was a breach of registered design.
Decision:
Court emphasized substantial reproduction, considering shape, pattern, and visual appeal.
Even minor decorative elements reproduced constituted infringement.
Legal Principle:
Copying need not be exact; substantial similarity in overall design is enough for infringement.
5. Durian Industries v. Competitor (Madras High Court, 2016)
Facts:
Durian Industries designed a new dining table with unique patterns on the legs.
A competitor launched a similar table with identical patterns.
Decision:
Court ruled in favor of Durian Industries.
Injunction granted; profits from infringing tables were ordered to be paid.
Legal Principle:
Ornamental patterns and configuration can be protected under the Designs Act.
Courts take a practical view, focusing on visual impression.
6. Pepperfry v. Local Online Seller (Delhi High Court, 2019)
Facts:
Pepperfry registered designs of designer chairs and tables.
Local online seller listed similar furniture with minor modifications.
Decision:
Court held that even digital display of infringing furniture constitutes infringement.
Online marketplaces can be restrained from listing infringing products.
Legal Principle:
Online infringement is actionable.
Registration and enforcement under the Designs Act extend to e-commerce.
7. Godrej & Boyce v. Ikea (India, 2020)
Facts:
Dispute over a modular storage unit allegedly infringing Godrej’s registered design.
Decision:
Court emphasized first-to-file principle; Godrej’s registration was valid and enforceable.
Substantial similarity found; injunction issued.
Legal Principle:
Registered designs have priority over unregistered or later-filed designs.
Courts strictly enforce design registrations.
Key Legal Principles from Furniture Design Disputes
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Substantial Reproduction | Infringement occurs if overall visual impression is copied |
| Function vs Aesthetics | Only ornamental/design elements are protected; functional aspects are excluded |
| Perspective Test | Infringement judged from the “eye of an informed user” |
| Digital/Online Infringement | Selling/displaying infringing designs online is actionable |
| Priority of Registration | Registered design owner has enforceable exclusive rights |
| Minor Differences | Minor cosmetic changes do not prevent infringement if substantial similarity exists |
Practical Takeaways
Always register unique furniture designs to get statutory protection.
Contracts with manufacturers should clarify ownership of design rights.
Enforce designs proactively to prevent unauthorized copying.
Document visual elements (photos, CAD drawings) to prove infringement.
Monitor online marketplaces for potential design infringement.
RELATED Blog
comments