India: Calcutta High Court Revisits The Tests For Novelty In A Design In View Of Prior Publication

In its recent judgment in Anuradha Doval vs. the Controller of Patents and Ors., the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta delved into the tests and requisites for assessing novelty in a design. The case was related to an appeal filed by the registered proprietor of a design registration No. 222799 relating to a "bottle cap" in class 09-01 against the order of cancellation of the said design by the Controller of Patents & Designs.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The Petitioner applied for cancellation of the registered design of the Appellant on 24th December 2012. The Petitioner contended that the said registered design shall be cancelled on the basis of following grounds:

  • that the shape and configuration of the impugned design was conventionally used by the liquor industry since many years, thereby the design features are not new or original;
  • that the impugned design is previously registered in India;
  • that impugned design is stated to be common feature of all plastic caps having been published in various documents including a magazine titled 'Ambrosia' issue of January/February, 2009 and in view of this prior art documents, the impugned design is neither new nor original;
  • that the cylindrical shape of the impugned design is absolutely dictated by the nature of the product.

The Assistant Controller after considering the contention of both parties observed that with reference to the pictures of bottles on rear page of front covers as well as back covers of the magazine issue of January 2009 (Vol. 16 No.8) and February 2009 (Vol.16 No.9), the designs are substantially identical. The Controller also noted that the said magazine was available in India and worldwide upon payment of subscription and there is no condition mentioned in those issues of the magazine about non disclosure of secrecy to be maintained by the subscriber readers.

Further, the Controller referred to the Delhi High Court judgment in Wimco Limited Vs. Meena Match Industries whereby it was held that "...It is not, however, necessary to prove that large number of copies of the specification have been actually sold or circulated. It is sufficient to show that the design was so described in the specification and some persons may fairly be supposed to have known of it".

In view of the said publication, it was held that the impugned design was published prior to its date of registration and upon comparison it has to be avowed that nothing new in terms of design has emerged from the impugned registration.

In view of the above, the Assistant Controller allowed the petition for cancellation of the impugned design.

The present appeal was filed by the registered proprietor Anuradha Doval challenging the said order by the Assistant Controller. In this case the Appellant has asserted that the Controller has committed a fundamental error in arriving at the said finding with regard to the novelty or originality of the design without the actual article being produced in reliance whereof prior publication has been alleged. A design cannot be cancelled as reproduction of a design on a piece of paper will have a different eye appeal as compared to viewing the actual product itself. The Appellant went on to state that registrable design must have a reference to some specific article to which it is applied and the Controller having held that the 'bottle cap' which is an article, should have considered the features and configuration of the said article along with the other bottle caps in order to find out whether there has been any novelty or originality. It was submitted that in the impugned order, there is no finding that the design lacks novelty or originality, per se, but registration was cancelled on the ground of prior art documents without insisting for the production of the other similar bottle caps and examination thereof.

In Gopal Glass Works Limited v. Assistant Controller of Patents& Designs & Ors., it was observed that it is significant that Parliament consciously, made publication in a country other than India a ground of cancellation, in addition to publication in India, but expressly restricted the embargo of prior registration to registration in India. Registration in a country other than India has not been made a ground for the cancellation of a registered design. Moreover, in order to destroy the novelty of a design registration, prior disclosure whether by publication or use or any other way, must be of the pattern, shape and/or configuration applied to the same article. The relevant observations can be found in Paragraphs 39 to 46 of the said judgment:

"39. The next question, in issue before this Court, is whether the finding of the respondent No. 1 that the document downloaded from the internet from the website of the Patent Office of the United Kingdom, might be taken as prior publication of the impugned design, is legally sustainable.

40. It is true that publication has not been defined in the 2000 Act. Yet, for reasons discussed above, mere publication of design specifications, drawings and/or demonstrations by the Patent Office of the United Kingdom, or for that matter, any other foreign country, in connection with an application for registration, would not, in itself, amount to publication that would render a design registered in India liable to cancellation.

41. To constitute prior disclosure by publication to destroy the novelty of a registered design, the publication would have to be, in tangible form, of the design applied to the same article. Prior publication of a trade catalogue, brochure, book, journal, magazine or newspaper containing photographs or explicit picture illustrations that clearly depict the application of the design on the same article, with the same visual effect would be sufficient.

42. When the novelty of an article is tested against a prior published document, the main factor required to be adjudged is the visual effect and the appeal of the picture illustration.

43. If the visual effect of the pattern, the shape or the combination of the pattern, shape, dimension, color scheme, if any, are not clear from the picture illustrations, the novelty cannot be said to have been destroyed by prior publication, unless there are clear and unmistakable directions to make an article which is the same or similar enough to the impugned design.

44. In the case of Rosedale Associated Manufacturers Ltd. v. Airfix Ltd., reported in 1957 RPC 239, Lord Evershed M.R. held as follows:

"In this respect the test of prior publication of an alleged invention, should, in my judgment, be no less applicable in the case of a registered design, and as regards the former, I venture to cite once more the oft quoted language of Lord Westbury in Hills v. Evans : 'The antecedent statement must, in order to invalidate the subsequent patent, be such that a person of ordinary knowledge of the subject would at once perceive and understand and be able practically to apply the discovery without the necessity of making further experiments.' By a like reasoning, to my mind, if a document is to constitute prior publication, then a reader of it, possessing ordinary knowledge of the subject, must from his reading of the document be able, at least, to see the design in his mind's eye and should not have to depend on his own originality to construct the design from the ideas which the document may put into his head."

45. The illustrations in the form of drawings downloaded from the website of the United Kingdom Patent Office depict the patterns that may be applied to glass sheets. The patterns may be same but the illustrations do not give the same visual effect as the samples of the glass sheets produced by the appellant in Court. There are also no clear unmistakable instructions or directions for production of glass sheets of the pattern illustrated.

46. The visual effect and/or appeal of a pattern embossed into glass sheets by use of embossing rollers could be different from the visual effect of the same pattern etched into glass sheets manually. The respondent No.1 has not considered these factors."

Based on the above, the appellant submitted that when a design is sought to be applied to an article unless two articles are simultaneously produced for examination, the Controller could not have held that there was no novelty or originality in the design of the petitioner.

With regards to aforesaid Gopal Glass Works judgment, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court cited paragraphs 21 & 22 of Reckitt Benkiser India Ltd. v. Wyeth Ltd1 noting that in Gopal Gas Works case, the the Supreme Court has in no manner laid down an absolute rule that there can never be prior publication although in the public record of the Registrar of Design abroad a particular design is found to be registered. The Supreme Court in fact, has specifically held that facts in each case have to be very minutely examined and Courts have to be extremely cautious, by thoroughly scrutinizing the evidence in each case, for deciding whether the public record available in Registrar of Design abroad could or could not be taken as prior publication, and in the peculiar facts of the case before the Supreme Court when we refer to paragraphs 45 to 47 [of Gopal Gas Works case] it becomes clear that the Supreme Court approved the view of the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court because even the Supreme Court found that sufficient evidence was not led on behalf of the objector to the registered design and that the documents downloaded through internet from the website of U.K. Patent Office did not add that amount of clarity for the same to be said to be prior publication for seeking cancellation on the basis of such alleged prior publication of a design registered in India.

Accordingly, it was observed that in cases of publication of a design by prior use as applied to an article, normally the questions which arise are whether it has been published at all (i.e whether the articles to which it has been applied have been disclosed to the public), and whether the design is similar enough to the design in suit to destroy the latter's novelty. But where the novelty of a design is tested against a prior published document, a number of additional questions can arise which do not arise in the case of a prior use.

First, it may not be clear whether or not the document discloses a design as applied to an article at all. A trade catalogue containing photographs or illustrations of articles to which a design has been applied may be a clear enough case.

But the publication in a document of a pattern or picture does not as such destroy the novelty of a design which consists of applying that pattern or picture to an article. For it to destroy the novelty of such a design, the paper publication must suggest explicitly or implicitly by context that the pattern or picture should be applied to an article.

Secondly, the pattern (if it is two-dimensional) or shape (if it is three-dimensional) of the design may not be clear from the document. Particularly in a case where it involves a written description rather than an explicit picture or illustration, there may be room for argument as to the precise nature of the design which the document discloses, before one can go on to ask whether or not it is similar enough to the latter design to destroy novelty.

Thirdly, a paper publication may be shielded from destroying the novelty of a later design registration by the special provisions and specific exceptions, as available in the Act.

Further, referring to the Rosedale judgment, the court in Dart Industries Inc. and Another v. Techno Plast and others2, at p.140 observed that "a person with ordinary prudence while seeing the designs/documents in question is able to relate, in his mind's eye, the same antecedents designs/statements without the necessity of making further experiments i.e., the moment he sees the designs, he is able to at once say 'Oh! I have seen before'."

After citing several judicial decisions and authorities, the Calcutta High Court observed that in the event, it is found that the impugned design has substantial identity with the prior published design, it is liable to be cancelled. In order to claim novelty, there has to be a significant change or difference in the design, although, it may have a common source. A mere trade variant without significant and substantial noticeable features would destroy novelty. A drawing or publication of a design in any form must suggest explicitly or implicitly by context that the pattern or picture should be applied to an article.

In the instant case, it was held that it cannot be said that the impugned design is new in its application. The prior published documents show almost similar features if not identical and it cannot be doubted that both the designs are substantially identical and the impugned design has been already taught by the publication prior to its registration. "Oh! I have seen before" would be the immediate and prompt reaction of a man looking at the impugned design.

Further, the Calcutta High Court emphasized that it has to be remembered that the respondent No.1, i.e., the Controller of Patents & Designs, is an expert body and has the required expertise to decide the matter. The said authority on consideration of all aspects of the matter clearly observed that the design features of the impugned registration no.222799 have been already taught by said publication prior to the date of registration of the impugned design. Similar advertisement showing the design of the bottle cap of impugned design can also be seen from the internal page 15 of the Vol.16 No.9 issue of the said magazine. This issue was published in February 2009 which is prior to the date of registration of the registered design. Comparing the bottle cap of impugned registration with those of previous publications, it has to be avowed that no new design has emerged from the impugned registration.

In view of the above, it was held that the impugned design is devoid of newness and originality and upheld the order of the Controller cancelling the registered design.

Footnote

1 AIR 2013 Delhi 101 (FB)

2 2007 (35) PTC 129 (Del)

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.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
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).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions