Designs Act, 2000

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.

Designs Act, 2000

Section 24
Section 22(4)

Transfer of proceedings — Every ground on which registration of design may be cancelled under Section 19 of the Act is available as a ground of defence — Once such a ground is taken in defence, then under Section 22(4) of the Act of 2000, the suit or any such proceeding is to be transferred to the High Court for decision — Petition allowed — Suit transferred to High Court.
Copyright Act, 1957
Section 45(1) — Respondent duty bound to inform the Registrar of Trade Marks about the pendency of the Civil suits and objections raised by the petitioner therein with regard to the colourable imitation of the petitioner's goods — Registrar of Trade Marks did not have the knowledge of the inter-se disputes which were pending — Certificate, quashed.

Section 24
Section 22(4)

Transfer of proceedings — Every ground on which registration of design may be cancelled under Section 19 of the Act is available as a ground of defence — Once such a ground is taken in defence, then under Section 22(4) of the Act of 2000, the suit or any such proceeding is to be transferred to the High Court for decision — Petition allowed — Suit transferred to High Court.
Copyright Act, 1957
Section 45(1) — Respondent duty bound to inform the Registrar of Trade Marks about the pendency of the Civil suits and objections raised by the petitioner therein with regard to the colourable imitation of the petitioner's goods — Registrar of Trade Marks did not have the knowledge of the inter-se disputes which were pending — Certificate, quashed.

Designs Act, 2000

Designs Act, 2000
Sections 11 & 22
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 .

Dabur Amla a well known brand in hair Oil marketed in plastic bottles shaped with a semicircular shoulder with curvaceous back and front panel tapering into each other, thereby providing a novel and original overall appearance .

HELD
That the bottles and caps used by the Defendants, produced before us (in addition to the photographs forming part of the record) deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff.
Mere fact that there may have been a registration in the U.S in respect of similar bottles and caps cannot come in the way of the plaintiffs seeking an order restraining the Respondent from infringing its registered design therefore interim injunction granted