Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000, lays down the acts which
amount to piracy of Designs. It provides that during the existence
of copyright in any design it is unlawful for any person-
(a) for the purpose of sale to apply or cause to be applied to
any article in any class of articles in which the design is
registered, the design or any fraudulent or obvious imitation
thereof, except with the licence or written consent of the
registered proprietor, or to do anything with a view to enable the
design to be so applied; or
(b) to import for the purposes of sale, without the consent of
the registered proprietor, any article belonging to the class in
which the design has been registered, and having applied to it the
design or any fraudulent or obvious imitation thereof; or
(c) knowing that the design or any fraudulent or obvious
imitation thereof has been applied to any article in any class of
articles in which the design is registered without the consent of
the registered proprietor, to publish or expose or cause to be
published or exposed for sale that article.
On November 9th, 2010 the Delhi high court in the
case of Schreder S.A & One Another v. Trilok Chand &
Sons Pvt. Ltd, applying the abovementioned Section found
Trilok Chand & Sons Pvt. Ltd's (defendant) product similar
to Schreder's (plaintiff) design and as a result passed an
interim order in favour of Schreder S.A & One Another thereby
restraining Trilok Chand during the pendency of the suit from
selling the product under any other name and model.
Schreder is the registered proprietor of a design, in respect of
a lighting apparatus, which it manufactures and sells under the
name "ALURA". The design had initially been registered
w.e.f 15th May, 2000 and was valid for 5 years. As per
the provisions contained in section 11 (1) of Designs Act, 2000,
which came into force on 11th May 2001, the copyright
registration became valid for 10 years from the date of
registration. On 12th April, 2010 vide an
application Schreder applied for the renewal of the aforesaid
registration. In view of the provisions contained in Section 11(2)
of the Designs Act, 2000 the Controller on payment of the
prescribed fee, is obliged to extend the period of copyright for a
second period of 5 years from the expiration of the original period
of 10 years fixed under sub section (1) of the aforesaid
The fact that the design was initially registered in the name of
"FINANCIERE DES APPLICATIONS DE L" ELECTRICITE
S.A.", and that the name of the aforesaid company had since
been changed to "SCHREDER S.A." was acknowledged by the
defendant in the application filed for revocation of the
registration in the name of the plaintiff.
A local commissioner appointed by the Court in order to inspect
the premises of the defendant, found documents including a
catalogue/ brochure in the premises of defendant, which showed one
model of post top lantern, named "VENICE HYT-01".
Upon a bare perusal of the model shown as "VENICE
HYT-01" in the catalogue/ brochure found in the premises of
the defendant and its comparison with the registered model of the
plaintiff being sold under the name "ALURA", the Court
found that it was identical to the design of the model of the
Trilok Chand contended that "VENICE HYT-01" was a
Chinese product and was not being sold by him. However, the Court
said that the very fact that the Brochure/Catalogue found from the
premises of Trilok Chand showed "VENICE HYT-01",
indicated a reasonable possibility that it was being sold in the
market by him. The Court further opined that even if he was not
manufacturing the product, it's similarity in design to that of
Schreder's product negated the right to sell it in the Indian
The court then observed, that although the defendant had sought
for the revocation of Schreder's design registration,
nevertheless so long as that application is pending and the
registration granted to the plaintiff is not revoked, then, Trilok
Chand had no right to sell a product, which has a design identical
with the registered design of Schreder's product. The Court,
accordingly, passed an interim order and directed the parties to
appear before the joint registrar for admission/denial of the
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
This article enunciates the recent, much awaited, and landmark judgment delivered on September 16, 2016 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court throwing light on the important provisions of the Copyright Act, 1962.
The Patents Act 1970, along with the Patents Rules 1972, came into force on 20th April 1972, replacing the Indian Patents and Designs Act 1911. The Patents Act was largely based on the recommendations of the Ayyangar Committee Report headed by Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar. One of the recommendations was the allowance of only process patents with regard to inventions relating to drugs, medicines, food and chemicals.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).