Introduction

This is a leading case in which the Supreme Court has defined the object and the purpose of the Designs Act, 2000.

Facts

• The respondent M/s Gopal Glass Works claimed to be the originator of a new and original industrial design applied to glass sheets by a mechanical process.
• On 29th October 2002, the respondent applied for registration of the design under the Designs Act, 2000, and it was registered on 5th November 2002, as Design No. 190336.
• The appellant IAG Glass Company Ltd. filed an application under Section 19 of the Designs Act, 2000 before the Controller of Patents & Designs for cancellation of the respondent's registration no. 190336.
• The appellant alleged that the design was not new or original and had already been previously published in India and abroad.
• The appellant relied on a catalog of a German company, M/s Dornbusch Gravuren GmbH, a letter from the German company stating it had developed a similar design in 1992, and a document downloaded from the UK Patent Office website showing a similar design registered in 1992.
• The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Kolkata canceled the respondent's registration, finding that the design was not new or original.
• The respondent filed a regular appeal under Section 36 of the Designs Act, 2000 before the Calcutta High Court against the Assistant Controller's order.
• The Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court reversed the Assistant Controller's order and dismissed the appellant's application for cancellation of registration.
• Aggrieved by the Single Judge's order, the appellant filed the present appeal in the Supreme Court.

Issues Involved

• Whether the design was not new or original in view of the fact that the roller bearing the design is published before the date of registration and the registered proprietor is not owner of design?
• Whether the design was published outside India as well as in India prior to the date of application?
• Whether the registered design was in public domain due to sale/use of the design prior to the date of application of the registered proprietor?

Observations

• The Supreme Court held that the burden was on the appellant to show that the design was not new or original, and the appellant failed to discharge this burden.
• The Court found no evidence to show that the design, as reproduced on glass sheets, was previously registered, published, or manufactured in India, Germany, or the United Kingdom.
• The Court noted that the Assistant Controller did not properly compare the registered design with the UK design and failed to consider the visual appeal of the finished product (glass sheet).
• The Court upheld the High Court's view that there was a distinguishable difference between the registered design and the UK design when applied to glass sheets.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the respondent's registration, finding that the design was new and original when applied to glass sheets.