Design Infringement In India – A Complete Overview

Design Infringement In India - Intellect Vidhya

A ‘design’ registration is awarded in India based on the aesthetic appeal of a product or article. A design does not impact or contribute to the functionality of a product; it is provided for decorative value alone. Due to the absence of a strict verification system, design infringement has become rampant in India. Take an example of a well-known footwear brand ‘CROCS’ famous for their footwear, each pair having 13 holes on the top of the shoe. Although they have registered the design of their footwear, you will still find many local shops in your area selling CROCS shoes despite the fact that they have registered the design of their footwear.

Designs Act, 2000

The Indian Design Act has been enacted to protect the rights of design holders in India. In common law nations such as the United States and the United Kingdom, patents and designs are governed by the same statute. Similarly, the Indian Patent & Design Act was enacted in 1911 to encompass both patents and designs. The term ‘Design’ under Design Act, 2000, is defined as “the features of shape, any pattern, configuration, ornament or composition of colors or lines which is applied to 2 dimensional or 3 dimensional or in both the forms using any procedure or process including manual, mechanical, or chemical, combined or separate which in the finished or final article appeals to or is judged solely by the eyes.”

Essential requirement for design protection

  • The design must be original or novel
  • A design should not have been disclosed to the public in advance
  • A design must be distinguishable from all other known designs or combinations

Rights of Design Holder in India

When a design is registered under the Act, the registered proprietor is granted 10 years of copyright protection. The proprietor’s rights are comparable to those of the owner of copyright, which includes the exclusive right to apply the registered design to the particular class of articles. The Act also permits the registered owner to grant a license for a charge. Several exclusive rights are obtained:

  • The exclusive right extends to any registered design for a product.
  • The exclusive right to disclose or publish granted to items for which the design has already been registered.
  • The registered design must own the sole right to import for any commercial purpose.

Design Infringement

The unauthorized copying of an existing registered design is considered as design infringement. The section 22 of the Design Act talks about the design infringement, it says that any false or apparent imitation of a registered design without the authorization of the registered design’s owner or proprietor is illegal. Additionally, the section restricts the importation of any chemical or material that closely resembles a registered design.

In simpler terms, when someone else imports, applies, or publishes the registered design, or any evident, fraudulent, or imitation thereof, without the owner’s permission, that’s called an infringement of the registered design.

In the case of Troika Pharmaceuticals v. Pro Laboratories, the Gujarat High Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff because they were the registered owners of ‘D’ shaped tablets, which was a protected design. The defendants began manufacturing identical tablets on the grounds that the design was common and did not merit protection. Even if the “D”-shaped design was not innovative, the Court found that its use in tablets was novel and hence entitled to protection under the Designs Act.

The court ruled in Kemp & Co. v. Prima Plastics Limited that “If the visual characteristics of shape, configuration, and pattern designs are comparable or stringently similar to the eye, it is not required that the two designs be identical. The issue must be viewed as one of substance, and fundamental design elements must be evaluated.”

Remedies for design infringement

Section 22(2) (a) & (2) (b) of the Design Act discusses on the liabilities of the infringer which impliedly becomes the remedies of design infringement available to the registered proprietor of the design, the same section also requires the registered owner or proprietor to select one of the available remedies that are mentioned below—

  • Section 22(2)(a): The infringer must pay a maximum of 25,000 Rupees for each infraction or breach recoverable as a contract debt to the registered owner or proprietor. The total amount recoverable for a single design should not exceed 50,000 Indian Rupees.
  • Section 22(2)(b): The registered owner or proprietor may choose to file a lawsuit for the recovery of damages and may even seek an injunction against further infringement. In such a scenario, the infringer is obligated to pay the sum awarded by the court and is also subject to an injunction.

In addition to this provision, section 55 of the Indian Copyright Act of 1957 enables the claimant to seek remedies, claim damages, or file a suit for injunction against anyone who infringes the registered article under the Act. The claimant is also entitled to the profits made by the infringing party from the infringed design.

Defenses available to the infringing party

The defenses available to the infringing party in case of design infringement are mentioned below-

  • Any grounds for cancellation of Registration of Design available under Section 19 of the Design Act, 2000;
  • The violation of a registered design should begin on the day when the design’s registration ceased to be valid and continue until the date of restoration of the registered design.
  • Lack of innovation in the design that has already been registered;
  • Functional differences between the product and the registered design;
  • Jurisdictional issues – The lawsuit for Design Infringement, recovery of damages, etc., must not be filed in a court lower than the District Judge court.

In case of Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. v. Wyeth Ltd, the problem here was with the registration of S-shaped spatulas. Wyeth Ltd., the respondent in this case, argued that the appellant’s design was not unique because it had previously been registered in a foreign nation. The court ruled that the design’s registration in India would be deemed to be cancelled and it may be sought as a defence against claimed infringement under Section 22 if it could be demonstrated that the design was disclosed anywhere in India or a foreign country through means listed under Section 4(b).


A novel design connected to an article can become a differentiating element between your product and other’s products, and when this happens, the design becomes an intangible asset for the owner/business employing such design since it associates the owner’s identity and reputation with it. In such a case, design registration becomes necessary, as the Design Act, 2000 makes design registration obligatory in order to claim protection and defend your design from infringement.


Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on whatsapp
Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on whatsapp

Related Posts

Micro Copyright in India: Protecting Small-Scale Creative Works

In the digital age, the creation and sharing of content have reached unprecedented heights. With the proliferation of user-generated content, short-form media, and the increasing significance of individual contributions to larger works, the concept of “micro copyright” has emerged. Micro copyright refers to the protection of smaller, often more granular, creative expressions. In the context of Indian copyright law, this concept presents unique challenges and opportunities. This article explores the intricacies of micro copyright and the conundrums surrounding its protection in India. Understanding Micro Copyright Micro copyright encompasses the rights associated with smaller creative works such as social media posts, memes, short videos, gifs, and even individual elements within larger works, like specific phrases or designs. These forms of content, while often brief and seemingly inconsequential, can hold significant value and can be the subject of copyright protection. The Legal Framework of Copyright in India The Indian Copyright Act, 1957, primarily governs copyright protection in India. The Act provides protection to original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, cinematograph films, and sound recordings. For a work to be protected, it must be original and expressed in a tangible form. Challenges in Protecting Micro Copyright 1. Originality and Fixation One of the fundamental requirements for copyright protection is that the work must be original and fixed in a tangible medium. This can be challenging for micro content, where the line between original creation and common expression is often blurred. Determining the originality of a tweet, meme, or short video clip can be subjective and contentious. 2. De Minimis Doctrine The de minimis doctrine, which means “about minimal things,” can pose a significant challenge for micro copyright. This doctrine suggests that the law does not concern itself with trivial matters. Small snippets of content might be considered too insignificant to warrant protection, leaving creators without legal recourse for unauthorized use. 3. Fair Use The concept of fair use allows for limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders. In the context of micro copyright, determining what constitutes fair use can be particularly tricky. For instance, sharing a meme or a short clip might be considered fair use, but if it goes viral and gains commercial value, the original creator might seek protection and compensation. 4. Enforcement and Attribution Even if micro content is eligible for copyright protection, enforcing these rights can be challenging. Monitoring the vast expanse of the internet for unauthorized use of small-scale content is a daunting task. Additionally, the ease with which digital content can be shared and altered complicates the process of ensuring proper attribution and compensation. The Way Forward 1. Clearer Guidelines and Definitions To address the challenges of micro copyright, clearer guidelines and definitions are needed within the Indian Copyright Act. Defining what constitutes a protectable micro work and setting standards for originality can provide better clarity for creators and users alike. 2. Digital Rights Management (DRM) and Technology Leveraging technology, such as digital rights management (DRM) systems and content recognition algorithms, can help creators monitor and enforce their copyright more effectively. These technologies can automate the process of identifying unauthorized uses and facilitate easier enforcement. 3. Education and Awareness Increasing awareness among creators about their rights and the mechanisms available for protecting their content is crucial. Educational campaigns and resources can empower creators to navigate the complexities of copyright law and safeguard their micro creations. 4. Legal Reform and International Cooperation Given the global nature of digital content, international cooperation and harmonization of copyright laws can play a significant role in addressing the challenges of micro copyright. Legal reforms that consider the unique nature of digital content and micro works can provide a more robust framework for protection. Conclusion The rise of micro copyright in the digital era presents a unique conundrum under Indian copyright law. While the current legal framework provides a foundation for protecting creative works, the nuances of micro content require more specific attention and adaptation. By addressing the challenges of originality, fair use, enforcement, and attribution, and by leveraging technology and education, India can better protect the rights of creators in the evolving landscape of digital content.

Read More »
Importance of Trademarking your Restaurant Name - Intellect Vidhya

Importance of Trademarking your Restaurant Name

Have you ever walked into a restaurant, drawn by its catchy name or eye-catching logo, only to discover that it’s not the establishment you thought it was? In the bustling food and hospitality industry of India, this scenario is becoming increasingly common. As more and more eateries pop up, it’s crucial for restaurant owners to protect their brand’s identity through trademark registration. A trademark is like a unique fingerprint that sets your goods or services apart from the competition. It’s a legal stamp that says, “This is ours, and no one else can use it.” And in the world of restaurants, where first impressions can make or break your business, a strong trademark can be a game-changer. Why Trademarks Matter for Restaurateurs? Success Stories of Trademarked Restaurant Brands The Consequences of Neglecting Trademark Protection In the vibrant culinary landscape of India, trademarking your restaurant brand is more than just a formality – it’s a strategic move that can safeguard your business identity, maintain brand recognition, and provide legal recourse against infringement. By understanding the importance of trademarks and understanding the appropriate registration process under Indian trademark law, you can protect your valuable intellectual property and pave the way for a future as bright as a perfectly cooked dish, fresh out of the kitchen.

Read More »
The Significance Of Prior Use In The Trademark Law Vans V Ivans - Intellect Vidhya

The Significance of Prior Use in the Trademark Law: Vans v. Ivans

In the complex realm of intellectual property rights, few principles hold as much significance as the concept of “prior use” in Indian trademark law. The recent ruling by the Delhi High Court in the Vans v. Ivans case has brought attention to the fundamental concept of giving precedence to the first user of a trademark in the market. The Vans v. Ivans Case: The case centred on a disagreement between Vans Inc., a well-known American footwear and apparel company, and FCB Garment Tex, an Indian company that used the “IVANS” trademark. Vans Inc. filed a request to invalidate FCB Garment Tex’s trademark registration in India, claiming that their “VANS” mark had recently gained recognition as a well-known trademark in the country. Nevertheless, the Delhi High Court ruled in favour of FCB Garment Tex, citing the prior use principle. Important Factors in the Court’s Decision The court’s ruling was influenced by several crucial elements. Firstly, it emphasised that FCB Garment Tex had been using the “IVANS” mark in India for years before Vans Inc. entered the market, applying the “first in the market” principle. Furthermore, the court made it clear that simply declaring a trademark as well-known does not automatically give the owner the authority to cancel other marks that were used earlier in India. Finally, the court determined that FCB Garment’s utilisation of the marks was both sincere and simultaneous, granting them protection under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act. Supporting the Principle of Prior Use This landmark ruling is a strong affirmation of the prior use principle in Indian trademark law. This principle emphasises that the initial user of a trademark in the market holds greater rights compared to later users, regardless of their registration status. This concept is deeply embedded in the Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999, and aims to safeguard businesses that have dedicated significant time and resources to establish their brand identity in the market. The Reasoning Behind Prior Use There are several reasons behind the prior use principle. It strives to recognise and safeguard businesses that have proactively built their brands in the marketplace. By prioritising the initial user, the law recognises the dedication and resources required to establish a strong brand presence and cultivate customer loyalty. This principle also helps to prevent unfair competition by ensuring that well-known brands are not replaced by new ones with similar marks, thus maintaining consumer trust and market stability. Territorial Nature of Trademark Rights In addition, the principle of prior use acknowledges the territorial nature of trademark rights. The Vans v. Ivans case clearly illustrates that having a worldwide reputation is not enough to establish legal rights in a particular jurisdiction. The principle highlights the significance of establishing a tangible market presence and utilising a trademark within India, rather than solely relying on international recognition or registration in other nations. Engaging with well-known Trademarks The prior use principle also has implications for other aspects of trademark law, including the recognition of well-known trademarks. The ruling by the Delhi High Court provides clarity on the advantages of having a well-known trademark status, while also acknowledging the rights of prior users in the market. This delicate equilibrium ensures the safeguarding of well-known local brands while acknowledging the prestige and recognition of globally renowned trademarks. Practical Considerations for Trademark Owners In practice, trademark owners are faced with a significant burden of maintaining proper documentation of their trademark use due to the prior use principle. This encompasses sales records, advertisements, and proof of customer recognition. Consistent and authentic use of the mark is essential, as any substantial gaps in usage can undermine a prior use claim. Conclusion Ultimately, the verdict of the Delhi High Court in the Vans v. Ivans case serves as a strong affirmation of the prior use principle within Indian trademark law. It emphasises the significance of having a strong market presence and building a reputable brand in order to establish and safeguard trademark rights in India. As the country continues to attract global brands while nurturing its own business ecosystem, this principle will undoubtedly have a significant impact on the development of trademark strategies and dispute resolutions.

Read More »
The Ethical and Legal Dilemma of AI Voice Cloning in the Music Industry - Intellect Vidhya

The Ethical and Legal Dilemma of AI Voice Cloning in the Music Industry

In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has made remarkable progress in various fields, including music production. Voice cloning in music has been a subject of intense debate, raising questions about copyright infringement, moral rights, and the preservation of artistic integrity. The recent criticism voiced by legendary Indian playback singer Kumar Sanu against AI voice duplication brings attention to the mounting concerns within the music industry. Power and Potential of AI Voice Cloning AI voice cloning technology has made significant progress in recreating the voices of singers with outstanding precision. This ability has resulted in the development of new songs that utilise the voices of artists who have passed away, as demonstrated in the recent example of “Pehle Hi Main.” This song was created using an AI-generated voice that mimics the late Mohammed Rafi, who sadly passed away in 1980. Although this technology presents fascinating opportunities for music production and preservation, it also brings up important ethical and legal concerns. Dealing with Copyright Infringement Copyright infringement is a significant legal concern when it comes to AI voice cloning. A singer’s voice is regarded as their valuable asset, safeguarded by copyright laws in numerous jurisdictions. When AI is employed to imitate a singer’s voice without authorization, it may potentially infringe upon copyright protections. This encompasses violations of reproduction rights, distribution rights, and the unauthorised creation of derivative works. Moral Rights and Personality Rights In addition to copyright concerns, AI voice cloning also brings up ethical and legal questions surrounding moral rights and personality rights. It is important for singers to safeguard their work from any alterations or manipulations that may negatively impact their reputation. Additionally, there is a potential for confusion and misrepresentation when AI-generated voices are not explicitly identified. Furthermore, in numerous legal systems, people possess the authority to regulate the commercial exploitation of their identity, appearance, or voice. Voice cloning might be perceived as a violation of these rights. Cloning the Voices of Deceased Artists Using AI to replicate the voices of deceased artists, such as Mohammed Rafi, brings about a whole new set of challenges. Although copyright protection usually lasts for many years after an artist’s passing, the ethical considerations surrounding the use of a deceased artist’s voice without their permission are quite substantial. There are concerns regarding the preservation of the legacy and artistic intentions of deceased musicians. Industry Response Kumar Sanu’s decision to pursue legal protection against AI voice cloning demonstrates a rising recognition of these concerns within the music industry. Other artists and industry professionals are also advocating for the establishment of regulatory frameworks to oversee the utilisation of AI in music production. There are several potential solutions being discussed to address the challenges posed by AI in music. These include establishing licencing protocols for the use of AI-cloned voices, requiring clear disclosure when AI voice cloning is used in a production, and developing specific laws to tackle these unique challenges. The Path Forward As AI technology advances, it is essential for the legal system to stay up to date. Collaboration between the music industry, legislators, and AI developers is crucial in establishing a framework that balances the protection of artists’ rights with the promotion of innovation. This could potentially include the need to revise copyright laws to specifically tackle AI-generated content, setting industry norms for the ethical application of AI in music production, and devising methods for artists to maintain control over and profit from the utilisation of their AI-replicated voices. Conclusion The emergence of AI voice cloning technology brings forth a range of possibilities and complexities for the music industry. Although it presents exciting opportunities for creativity, it also raises serious concerns regarding artists’ rights and the authenticity of their work. As evidenced by Kumar Sanu’s case, it is clear that there is a pressing requirement for the establishment of legal and ethical frameworks to regulate the utilisation of this technology. As we move forward with the more enhanced versions of AI, it’s crucial to find a harmony between technological advancement and safeguarding artists’ rights. It is crucial to establish thoughtful regulation and foster industry cooperation to ensure that AI positively impacts the creative ecosystem of the music industry.

Read More »