Functional Design Exclusions Case-Law India
Functional Design Exclusion – Case Law in India
I. Concept of Functional Design Exclusion
Under Indian law, design protection does NOT extend to features dictated purely by function. The rationale is that functional features belong to patent law, not design law.
Statutory Basis
The principle flows mainly from the Designs Act, 2000:
Section 2(d) – Design means features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament applied to an article, which appeal to the eye.
Section 2(d) proviso – Mode or principle of construction and mere mechanical devices are excluded.
Section 4 – Designs that are not new or original or are functional cannot be registered.
👉 If function dictates form, the design is not registrable.
1. Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. v. Gopal Glass Works Ltd. (2008)
Facts
Bharat Glass claimed design infringement for glass sheet designs used in construction.
Gopal Glass argued that the design was purely functional, meant to strengthen glass and improve utility.
Legal Issue
Whether a design which improves strength and utility can be protected under the Designs Act.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning
A valid design must appeal solely to the eye.
If the design’s primary purpose is functional efficiency, it is excluded.
However, if visual appeal exists independently, protection may survive.
Decision
The Court upheld protection only because the design had visual ornamentation beyond function.
Principle Laid Down
✔ Functional improvement alone is not enough
✔ Visual appeal must be separable from function
2. Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co. (2006)
Facts
Dispute involved textile fabric patterns.
Defendant argued patterns were functional, meant to hide stains and increase durability.
Legal Issue
Can a design with a functional advantage still qualify for protection?
Delhi High Court’s Reasoning
Functional utility does not automatically exclude design protection.
The test is dominance:
👉 Is the design primarily functional or primarily aesthetic?
Decision
Court protected the design because visual appeal dominated over utility.
Principle Laid Down
✔ Dominant purpose test
✔ If aesthetics dominate, design survives even with incidental function
3. Dabur India Ltd. v. Amit Jain (2009)
Facts
Dabur claimed design protection over a bottle shape.
Defendant argued the shape was dictated by ease of holding and pouring.
Legal Issue
Is a container shape dictated by ergonomics functional and hence excluded?
Delhi High Court’s Reasoning
If a shape is adopted only for convenience, storage, or handling, it is functional.
No evidence of independent visual novelty.
Decision
Design registration invalidated.
Principle Laid Down
✔ Ergonomic necessity = functional exclusion
✔ No monopoly over shapes needed for practical use
4. Crocs Inc. v. Liberty Shoes Ltd. (2019)
Facts
Crocs claimed design infringement for its ventilated footwear design.
Liberty argued holes, shape, and straps were purely functional (ventilation, grip, comfort).
Legal Issue
Can footwear design with functional elements be protected?
Delhi High Court’s Reasoning
Every element (holes, sole pattern, strap) served a specific function.
No independent ornamentation.
Design monopoly would block competition.
Decision
Crocs’ design registration was invalidated.
Principle Laid Down
✔ Where function dictates overall appearance, design protection fails
✔ Courts will prevent evergreening through design law
5. Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. Videocon Industries (2014)
Facts
Whirlpool claimed infringement over washing machine panel design.
Videocon argued layout was dictated by functional requirements.
Legal Issue
Whether arrangement of controls and panels is functional.
Delhi High Court’s Reasoning
Placement of buttons and dials was driven by user convenience and operation logic.
No aesthetic creativity independent of function.
Decision
Design protection denied.
Principle Laid Down
✔ Functional layout ≠ design
✔ Operational efficiency excludes design monopoly
6. Kent RO Systems Ltd. v. Amit Kotak (2017)
Facts
Kent claimed design rights over water purifier shape and internal configuration.
Defendant argued shape improved water flow and filtration efficiency.
Legal Issue
Can a design dictated by technical necessity be protected?
Delhi High Court’s Reasoning
Design law does not protect technical or engineering solutions.
Such features belong to patent domain.
Decision
Design held invalid.
Principle Laid Down
✔ Technical necessity = functional exclusion
✔ Design law cannot substitute patent protection
7. Carlsberg Breweries v. Som Distilleries (2018)
Facts
Carlsberg claimed design protection over beer bottle shape.
Defendant argued shape was standard for pressure resistance and storage.
Legal Issue
Is a standard industrial bottle shape functional?
Delhi High Court’s Reasoning
Bottle shape chosen for strength and stacking efficiency.
No eye-catching novelty.
Decision
Design invalidated.
Principle Laid Down
✔ Industrial standard shapes are functional and non-protectable
II. Tests Evolved by Indian Courts
From these cases, courts have evolved clear tests:
1. Functionality Test
Does the design exist primarily to perform a function?
2. Dominant Purpose Test
Is the dominant purpose aesthetic or functional?
3. Eye Appeal Test
Does the design appeal to the eye alone, independent of use?
4. Alternative Design Test
Are alternative designs possible to perform the same function?
III. Relationship with Patent Law
Indian courts consistently hold:
Functional features → Patent law
Visual features → Design law
Using design law to protect functional innovation is considered abuse of monopoly.
Conclusion
Indian jurisprudence on functional design exclusion is well-settled:
Designs dictated by function, ergonomics, engineering, or utility are excluded.
Courts actively prevent design evergreening.
A design survives only when aesthetic value is independent of function.
Key Cases That Shaped the Law
Bharat Glass
Microfibres
Dabur
Crocs
Whirlpool
Kent RO
Carlsberg
RELATED Blog
comments