- Home
- About Us
- Patent
- Trademark
- Services
-
-
- Patents
- Patent Filing & Prosecution Services
- Patenting in USA
- Freedom to Operate Search
- Patentability Search (Prior Art )
- PCT Application Drafting & Filing
- Patent Search, Drafting & Filing in USPTO
- Infringement Analysis
- Patent Landscape
- Patent Valuations Services
- Patent Drafting Services
- Patent Filing Services
- Responding to Office Action
- Patent Support Outsourcing Service
- Patent Search Outsourcing
- Patent Oppositions services
- Patent Validity/Invalidity Search and Opinion
- IP Audit
- Patents
-
- Events
- Resources IPR
- Contact
- enquiry@brainiac.co.in
- Pune: +91-20-711-71800 Mumbai :+91-22-48934806 Pune :+91-9112299453
DESIGN CASE
RAJESH MASRANI V. TAHILIANI DESIGN PVT. LTD, AIR2009DELHI44
RAJESH MASRANI V. TAHILIANI DESIGN PVT. LTD, AIR2009DELHI44
Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act is applicable to the copyright in any design capable of being registered but has not been registered and the copyright in the said design cease to exist as soon as any article to which the design has been applied has been reproduced more than 50 times by an industrial process. Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000 does not include any “artistic work” as defined in Clause (c) of Section 2 of the Copyright Act.” Registration of the work is not compulsory nor is a condition precedent for maintaining a suit for damages for infringement of Copyright
ReferenceINDUSTRIAL DESIGN SERVICES
INTERNATIONAL CYCLE GEARS VS. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGN
On a petition for cancellation, the Controller cancelled a design pertaining to “Coaster Brake Hub” based on prior publication and functional features. A design called Russian Model, which was similar to the registered design was published in Velo Bike Special Issue before date of filing by the design holder. On a comparison of the two designs, theCalcutta High Court felt that the designs were similar, and that the prior published Russian Model anticipated the design in question from the point of view of a prudent person. The Court in the case cited several judgments pertaining to novelty, originality and aesthetic appeal.
Decided On: 10.05.2019
CROCS INC. V. BATA INDIA LTD. AND OTHERS FAO(OS) (COMM) 78/2
CROCS INC. V. BATA INDIA LTD. AND OTHERS FAO(OS) (COMM) 78/2
Crocs Inc. alleged in its suit that its registered design was infringed by the defendants. Crocs file a case for permanent injunction seeking to stop all the other manufactures from making the design of appellant footwear. The designs are related holed and non-holed shoe design. All these footwear manufactures for supposedly adopting and copying the registered design.
Delhi High Court held that Plaintiff cannot get the benefit of registered design as the remarkably similar designs of holey soles were available prior to crocs. Declared registration as invalid.
Crocs also filed separate suits seeking an injunction against the defendants on the ground of passing off- Court dismissed this suit and Defendants were awarded with legal cost they incurred and 2 lakh rupees for the loss suffered to each defendant.
