Appeal filed against dismissal of Notice of Motion filed foo restraining respondents from infringing appellant's registered design of cap. Appellants were registered owners of design article called "Parachute Cap" on the other hand respondents had filed Application for registration of their's as "Cocoraj Cap" . Notice of motion was dismissed on grounds that Appellants' cap was not "an article" as defined in s. 2(a) of the Act by mainly relying on English Court's Judgment of Ford Motor Company Limited's Design Applications.
Held, that cap of packing is an article within ambit of definition of "an article" as defined in 2(1) of the Act of 2000. Definition of "article" under the Act read with definition of "design" are different from provision of English statute and words "includes any part of an article capable of being made and sold separately", whereas, in English statute words are "if that part is to be made and sold separately" - Phrase "capable of being made and sold separately" covers cases not only that article upon which design article can be made but also can be sold separately. Designed article cap is capable of being made separately and sold separately since
the Appellants/ Plaintiffs got registration under the Design Act, therefore, such owner of design article is definitely entitled to have exclusive rights to claim protection . Looking from top and surface pattern of bottle cap, even from point of view of shape and configuration and surface pattern of bottle cap, both bottles are not similar . Moreover caps do not have identical configuration and protrusions and therefore, there is no question of infringement of any registered design. Appeal disposed of.