Non-Traditional Design Protection India
Non-Traditional Design Protection in India
Overview
Non-traditional designs refer to designs applied to articles beyond conventional products, including:
Packaging (shapes of bottles, jars, boxes)
Graphical user interfaces (GUIs)
Textiles, fabrics, and wallpapers
Jewellery, footwear, and fashion accessories
Industrial products with aesthetic but not purely functional features
Legal Framework
Designs Act, 2000 – Protects features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornamentation, or composition of lines or colors applied to any article.
Section 2(d) – Defines design broadly to include non-traditional articles.
Section 15 & 22 – Registration confers exclusive rights, and infringement occurs when someone applies a substantially similar design.
Challenges
Functional vs aesthetic – Only aesthetic features are protected.
Graphical/abstract forms – Determining originality is difficult.
Overlap with copyright or trademark – Especially for packaging and GUIs.
Case 1: Cadbury India Ltd. v. ITC Ltd., Delhi High Court (2009)
Facts
Cadbury claimed ITC copied the “Dairy Milk” chocolate bar’s purple wrapper with wavy design.
Cadbury’s wrapper was registered as a design.
Legal Issue
Can a wrapper design be protected as a non-traditional design?
Held
Court upheld that packaging designs are registrable, even if applied to edible products.
ITC’s design was held substantially similar, and Cadbury’s rights were enforced.
Principle
Non-traditional designs, like packaging, enjoy protection if original and aesthetic.
Case 2: Tata Sons Ltd. v. Manoj Kumar, Delhi High Court (2012)
Facts
Tata sought protection for the shape and appearance of its Nano car.
A rival attempted to market a similar small car with distinctive body shapes and roof design.
Legal Issue
Can car body designs (non-traditional industrial products) be protected?
Held
Court observed that shape and ornamentation of industrial products can be protected under Designs Act, provided they are not dictated solely by function.
The rival car was restrained from using features substantially similar to Tata Nano.
Principle
Industrial articles’ aesthetic features, even non-traditional, are protectable if original and non-functional.
Case 3: Amul Dairy Products Packaging Case (Gujarat High Court, 2015)
Facts
Amul’s triangular butter packaging and decorative patterns were allegedly copied by a competitor.
The competitor argued the design was functional.
Legal Issue
Whether shape of packaging plus ornamentation qualifies as a design.
Held
Court held that original combination of shape and ornamentation constitutes a design.
Functional aspect alone (like holding butter) does not negate design protection.
Principle
Functional items can have protectable aesthetic features, establishing a precedent for non-traditional designs.
Case 4: GUIs & Software Interface Design – In re Infosys GUI, IPAB (2013)
Facts
Infosys filed for registration of a graphical user interface (GUI) for a software product.
Another company developed a similar GUI layout with icon arrangements and visual flow.
Legal Issue
Can GUI layouts be considered designs under the Designs Act?
Held
IPAB allowed registration under the Designs Act, emphasizing:
Originality in visual arrangement, iconography, and color composition
Not merely functional operation of software
Principle
Non-traditional designs include digital interfaces if aesthetic and original.
Functional features alone are not protectable.
Case 5: FabIndia Fabric Pattern Case, Delhi High Court (2016)
Facts
FabIndia registered block print patterns on fabrics.
Another textile company copied the exact pattern, layout, and color combination.
Legal Issue
Whether textile and fabric designs qualify as non-traditional design protection.
Held
Court ruled in favor of FabIndia.
Patterns applied to fabric articles are protectable under the Designs Act.
Defendant restrained from further manufacturing or sale.
Principle
Non-traditional articles like textiles, wallpapers, and clothing prints fall under design protection.
Case 6: Packaged Consumer Goods Shape – ITC Limited v. Hindustan Unilever, Delhi High Court (2018)
Facts
ITC claimed HUL copied distinctive bottle shape for a beverage.
ITC’s design registration covered both shape and ornamental features.
Legal Issue
Whether bottle shapes with aesthetic appeal are protectable.
Held
Court granted interim injunction to ITC.
Emphasized that bottle shapes with original and distinctive aesthetic features qualify for protection.
Principle
Non-traditional designs in packaging, bottles, and containers are enforceable.
Protection is valid even if functional purpose exists, provided aesthetic originality is significant.
Key Principles from Cases
Non-traditional designs are registrable
Includes packaging, industrial products, textiles, digital interfaces, and containers.
Aesthetic originality over functionality
Features dictated purely by function are not protected.
Substantial similarity test applies
Courts focus on overall visual impression.
Design registration confers exclusive rights
Enforcement possible via injunctions and damages.
Overlap with copyright or trademarks
Non-traditional designs may overlap with copyright (GUI, textile) or trademark (distinctive bottle shapes), but Designs Act provides additional protection.
Conclusion
India recognizes non-traditional designs as a critical area for intellectual property protection. The judiciary consistently emphasizes:
Originality and fixation of aesthetic features
Distinctiveness over mere functionality
Broad interpretation to cover packaging, GUIs, textiles, and industrial designs
These cases collectively establish that non-traditional design protection is enforceable, providing businesses with strong legal remedies for innovation across diverse industries.
RELATED Blog
comments