Designs Jurisprudence Advanced India
Designs Jurisprudence in India – Advanced Analysis with Case Laws
1. Concept of Design under Indian Law
Under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000, a design refers to:
Features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or composition of lines or colours
Applied to any article
Which appeal to and are judged solely by the eye
Does not include:
Any mode or principle of construction
Mere mechanical devices
Trademarks or artistic works under Copyright Act
Indian design jurisprudence has evolved primarily around:
Novelty and originality
Prior publication
Visual appeal
Functionality vs aesthetics
Overlap with copyright and trademark law
2. Landmark Case Laws Shaping Designs Jurisprudence
1. Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. v. Gopal Glass Works Ltd. (2008, Supreme Court)
Facts
Plaintiff held a registered design for diamond-shaped patterns on glass sheets.
Defendant argued lack of novelty and prior publication.
Legal Issues
What constitutes novelty and originality?
Whether visual similarity alone determines infringement.
Judgment
Supreme Court held that:
Novelty lies in the visual effect, not in the individual elements.
Even common elements arranged in a new visual form can be novel.
Infringement is determined by overall visual impression, not minute differences.
Jurisprudential Contribution
Established the “eye appeal test” as central to design protection.
Strengthened registered design rights against imitation.
2. Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co. (2009, Delhi High Court)
Facts
Dispute over textile designs used in upholstery fabrics.
Plaintiff claimed copyright and design infringement.
Legal Issues
Overlap between copyright and design law.
When does copyright protection cease?
Judgment
Court ruled:
Once an artistic work is industrially applied more than 50 times, copyright ceases.
Design protection under the Designs Act becomes the sole remedy.
Jurisprudential Contribution
Clarified mutual exclusivity between copyright and design law.
Prevented dual monopolies for mass-produced designs.
3. Dabur India Ltd. v. Amit Jain (2009, Delhi High Court)
Facts
Dabur claimed infringement of its “Hajmola” bottle design.
Defendant used a similar bottle shape and configuration.
Legal Issues
Whether functional containers can receive design protection.
Test for design infringement.
Judgment
Court held:
Functional articles may still enjoy protection if aesthetic features are separable.
Test is whether the average consumer is deceived by visual similarity.
Jurisprudential Contribution
Recognised trade dress-like protection through design law.
Clarified consumer perception test in design infringement.
4. Castrol India Ltd. v. Tide Water Oil Co. (1996, Bombay High Court)
Facts
Dispute over lubricant container designs.
Defendant argued container shape was functional.
Legal Issues
Functionality versus aesthetic protection.
Registrability of utilitarian objects.
Judgment
Court ruled:
Even functional articles can be protected if design elements are ornamental.
Pure functionality is excluded, but aesthetic variations are protectable.
Jurisprudential Contribution
Laid early foundation for functional-aesthetic distinction.
Influenced later jurisprudence under the Designs Act, 2000.
5. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. v. Wyeth Ltd. (2013, Delhi High Court)
Facts
Dispute over product packaging design.
Plaintiff relied on registered design and passing off.
Legal Issues
Can design registration protect packaging appearance?
Relationship between design infringement and passing off.
Judgment
Court held:
Packaging is an “article” under the Designs Act.
Design registration protects visual appearance, while passing off protects source identification.
Jurisprudential Contribution
Expanded scope of design protection to commercial packaging.
Recognised parallel remedies in design and trademark law.
6. Crocs Inc. USA v. Liberty Shoes Ltd. (2018, Delhi High Court – Full Bench)
Facts
Crocs claimed design infringement of its clog-style footwear.
Defendant challenged validity due to prior publication.
Legal Issues
Prior publication standards.
Maintainability of design infringement suits.
Judgment
Court ruled:
A design already in public domain cannot be enforced.
If registration is prima facie invalid, injunction cannot be granted.
Jurisprudential Contribution
Strengthened validity challenges in design litigation.
Emphasized public domain doctrine in design law.
7. Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. Videocon Industries Ltd. (2014, Delhi High Court)
Facts
Dispute over washing machine design features.
Defendant claimed differences in technical features.
Legal Issues
Role of minor variations.
Assessment of deceptive similarity.
Judgment
Court held:
Minor mechanical changes do not avoid infringement.
Overall visual similarity is decisive.
Jurisprudential Contribution
Reinforced the overall impression test.
Prevented cosmetic modifications to evade liability.
3. Core Doctrines Emerging from Indian Design Jurisprudence
1. Eye Appeal Doctrine
Design must appeal to the eye; functional utility alone is insufficient.
2. Overall Visual Impression Test
Courts assess designs as a whole, not feature-by-feature.
3. Prior Publication Rule
Any prior disclosure destroys novelty and invalidates registration.
4. Functional-Aesthetic Separation
Functional articles can be protected if aesthetic elements dominate.
5. No Dual Protection Doctrine
Mass-produced designs cannot enjoy simultaneous copyright and design protection.
4. Conclusion
Indian designs jurisprudence has matured significantly, balancing:
Innovation incentives
Public domain protection
Consumer deception concerns
Interface with copyright and trademark law
Through consistent judicial interpretation, Indian courts have ensured that design law protects visual creativity without granting monopolies over function, making it a robust and commercially relevant IP regime.
RELATED Blog
comments