Date of Judgment: 03.07.2023
Case No: CS Comm 580 of 2022
Neutral Citation No: 2023:DHC:,4343
Name of Hon'ble Court: Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: C Hari Shankar , H.J.
Case Title:Jayson Industries Vs Crown Craft India
THE SUBJECT MATTER SUIT:
The Plaintiff filed the Suit seeking relief of inter alia Permanant injunction for Infringement of Design.
The Plaintiff claimed to have granted Design Registrations 326707, 326883 and 32688.
THE SUBJECT MATTER PRODUCT:
THE CLAIMED DESIGN:
The Plaintiff claimed novelty novelty in the shape, configuration and surface pattern of the bucket, mug and tub.
THE PROCEEDING:
The Suit filed before the Ld. Trial Court and ex parte injunction was granted.
Subsequently by virtue of Section 22[4] of the Design Act 2000, the matter got transferred to Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Defendant Appeared and filed application seeking vacation of ex parte injunction.
CONTENTION OF DEFENDANT:
The Defendant contended the subject matter Design to be prior published.
In support of this, the Defendant filed third parties brochures, US Design Registrations, products available on the internet , prior to filing of the subject matter Design Registrations of the Plaintiff.
THE JUDGEMENT:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to dismiss the Application of Plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and was pleased to vacate the injunction granted in favour of the Plaintiff.
THE REASONING:
The Two dimensional representation of the application of features or shape, configuration, pattern etc. to an article would constitute a “design”.
The design is to be judged “solely by the eye”. The test to decide whether a particular application of shape, configuration, pattern, etc. to an article constitutes a design is, therefore, essentially ocular/visual.
Judged in an ocular/visual manner, the application of the shape, configuration, pattern, etc., to the article must appeal to the eye. Thus, it is not mere ocular assessment, but ocular Appeal, which is decisive.
One should not confuse the principle of “ocular appeal” or “visual appeal” with “attractiveness”. “Appeal” is a highly subjective concept, and beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. Often, as Narayanan says, strange and bizarre designs may also appeal.
If they do, and the difference is not merely mechanical or functional in nature, the Court has to view the matter objectively, and not from the subjective point of view of a connoisseur of the arts.
Thus, a “design” constitutes of features of shape, configuration, etc., applied, or meant to be applied, to an article of manufacture by industrial process which, when so applied, appeal when judged solely by the eye, and must not be purely functional in nature.
Features of shape, configuration, pattern, etc. which may already existed in prior art may, nonetheless, qualify as original, within the Section 2(g), if, the manner in which they are applied is new.
The only two features of the suit designs, in which novelty and originality are claimed by the plaintiffs, are the vertical ribs along the length of the suit designs and the flanges on the rim.
The various prior arts to which Defendant has alluded clearly indicate that vertical ribs along the length of the bucket/tub/mug in question, from apex to base, as well as extended flanges at the rim of the concerned vessel, are not features which have originated from the plaintiff. Hence the Design of Plaintiff was was held not to be unique enought worthy of protection by the Hon'ble Court.
DISCLAIMER
Information contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for legal advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the facts and law involved herein.
Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP ADJUTOR
Patent and Trademark Attorney
ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com
9990389539
No comments:
Post a Comment