Industrial Design

Industrial Design

Evolution of Competition Tr aditional product Te chnolo gy Pricin g o f p roduct Qu alit y o f P ro duct Desig n d iffe re ntia l 1

“When companies are competing at equal price & functionality Design is the only differential that matters” – Mark Dziersk, quoted in TIME Magazine

What is an industrial Design

It is a new or original idea in relation to the features of shape, configuration, Pattern, Ornament, Composition of lines or colours or combination thereof applied to any article by an industrial process

Shape and configuration

It signifies something solid (in three dimensions) where an idea is incorporated into the article Example - feeding bottle

Pattern, Ornament  It relates to something two dimensional

Example- engraving on metal or like ornamentation on carpet by various geometric figures in combination of color etc.  Mere painting of natural scenes or like on

plain paper- is not an industrial design

Industrial Designs Business (Idea) point of view: Make your product appealing to consumers  Customize products in order to target different customers (e.g. Swatch)  Develop the brand (e.g. Apple ’s « Think Different » strategy; i Pod) 

Legislative Framework of IP Administration Department of IP &P covers The Patents Act, 1970 (as amended in 2005)  The Patents Rules, 2003 (as amended in 2006) The Designs Act, 2000  The Designs Rules, 2001 (as amended in 2008) The Trade Marks Act 1999  The Trade Marks Rules 2002 The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act, 1999 The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration & Protection) Rules, 2002, Department of Education covers

The Copyrights Act 1957 (amended in 1999)

Benefits of Registration  Exclusive right to apply design to the

article in the class in which design is registered.  Better protection and can sue for piracy of

design.  Licensing of design as legal property for

consideration or royalty.

Designs Act, 2000 - Salient Features  Scope of definition of terms ‘Article’ &

‘Design’ enlarged  Addition of definition of the term ‘Original’  Introduction of delegation of powers to

Examiners & other Officers by Controller  Codification of non- registerable Designs  Substitution of classification system

(Locarno classification)

Designs Act, 2000 - Salient Features  Removal of secrecy period of two years for

a registered Design  Public inspection available after notification  Rights of Registered Proprietor defined  Provision of Restoration of Lapsed Design  Electronic Register of Design

Designs Act, 2000 - Salient Features  Initial term of protection for 10 years,

extendable by 5 years on request  Provision for preferring Appeal on the

Controller’s order before High Court  Substitution of Applicants before registration

of design  Additional grounds for Cancellation of design

Designs Act, 2000 - Salient Features

 Registration of assignments/transfer of right

made mandatory  Penalty for piracy of registered design enhanced  Inclusion of Paris Convention Countries apart from Commonwealth Countries for priority

The Designs Act, 2000 - Definitions Sec 2(d) Design: Means only features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or compositions of lines or colours applied to any article whether in two or three dimensional or both by any industrial process or means whether manual, mechanical or chemical, separate or combined,………

The Designs Act, 2000 - Definitions Sec 2(d) Design: ……… which in the finished article appeal to and judged solely by eye but does not include any mode or principle of construction and does not include any Trade Mark or Property Mark and Artistic work as defined in clause (c) of section 2 of the Copyright Act’1957.

Sec 2 (c ) – Copyright Act Artistic work means(i) A painting, a sculpture, a drawing (diagram, map, chart or plan) or engraving or photograph…… (ii) Any work of architecture and (iii) Any other work of artistic craftsmanship. Such work is not a subject matter of an industrial design

The Designs Act, 2000 - Definitions

Sec 2(a) Article: Means any article of manufacture and any substance, artificial or partly artificial and partly natural and includes any part of article capable of being made and sold separately

Prohibition of registration of certain designs

Sec.4 -

A design which(a) is not new or original; or (b) has been disclosed to the public any where in India or in any other country by publication in tangible form or by use or in any other way prior to the filing date, or where applicable, the priority date of the application for registration; or • is not significantly distinguishable from,known designs or combination of known designs; or (d ) comprises or contains scandalous or

Requirements for Registration A Design should:  Be New or Original  Be Distinguishable from known designs  Be applied to an article  Not be disclosed to public in any form  Appeal to eye  Not comprise of obscene matter  Not be contrary to public order or morality

New or Original  Novelty is judged solely by eye w.r.t. external appearance of the finished article  Neither constructional details nor utility of article are relevant for registration  Novelty may reside in its application to article  Absolute novelty- i.e. Not publicly known or used in India or elsewhere.

Original In relation to design means: originating from the author of such design and includes the cases which though old in themselves yet are new in their application [sec 2(g)]

What are not Registrable  When design to applied to the inner portion of the

article not visible or noticeable in finished article.  Principle or mode of construction of the article  Building and structures  Sole functional features  Part of an article not sold separately  Variation commonly used in trade  Stamps, Labels, Tokens, Medals, Trade Marks , Property Marks, Cards, Cartoons.  Mere change in size.  Designs contrary to public order or morality or scandalous  Computer chip, Integrated circuit designs

The following articles are not registrable  Calendar, certificates, forms, greeting cards,

leaflets, maps, building plan, medals  Mere mechanical contrivance  Basic shape, variations commonly used in the

trade  Mere workshop alteration  Flags, emblems, or signs of any country,

computer icons

Filing Requirements  Applicant :  Application :

Applicant means any individual or legal entity. One application in prescribed form for one design in one class with prescribed fee.

 Representation: Four sets of Representation with the

different views of the article for clear understanding the nature of article.

 Declaration :-

Statement of novelty and disclaimers.

 Power of Attorney : (If required).

Filing of Design Application

KOLKATA H.O.

Delhi

Mumbai

Receiving Center Receiving Center

Receiving & Examination

Chennai Receiving Center

Particulars required for application  Application form 1 with requisite fee of Rs. 1,000/ Four sets of Representation sheets in durable paper of A4 size, pasted with the photographs/drawings of the article from different angles. 

Power of attorney (if required)



Priority document (for convention Appln.)

Contd …

Contd. from previous slide…

Preparation of the Representation Sheet  A4 Size white durable paper  Sheet nos. To be mentioned in each

sheet  Photographs/line diagrams/ computer graphics of the article  Name of the views  Statement of novelty  Disclaimer  Signature of the applicant/ agent  DATE

Representation Sheet Name of the Applicant XYZ, PVT.LTD. Date :-

No. of sheet 05 Sheet No.- 01

Side view

STATEMENT OF NOVELTY

DISCLAIMER

Signature of App

Name of the Applicant XYZ, PVT.LTD.

No. of sheet Sheet No.-

Statement of Novelty Novelty resides in the shape and configuration of the “Pressure cooker” as illustrated. Or Novelty resides in the shape and configuration particularly in the portions marked ‘A’ & ‘B’ of the “Pressure cooker” as illustrated.

Statement of Disclaimer  No claim is made by virtue of this registration to any right to

the use as a trade mark of what is shown in the representations.  No claim is made by virtue of the registration in respect of

any mechanical or there action of the mechanism whatever or in respect of any mode or principle of construction of the article.  No claim is made by virtue of this registration to any right to

the exclusive use of the words, letters, numerals, flags, crowns, etc. appearing in the design.

Example of Representation

(SPECIMEN OF REPRESENTATION SHEETS)

The novelty resides in the shape & configuration of the 'CHAIR' as illustrated. No claim is made by virtue of this registration in respect of any mechanical or other action of any mechanism whatever or in respect of any mode or principle of construction of the Article. No claim is made by virtue of this registration to any right to the exclusive use of the words, letters, numbers, or trade marks appearing in the representation. Dated:

Signature of the applicant/agent (Name of the Signatory)

(SPECIMEN OF REPRESENTATION SHEETS)

RIGHT SIDE VIEW

LEFT SIDE VIEW

The novelty resides in the shape & configuration of the 'CHAIR' as illustrated. No claim is made by virtue of this registration in respect of any mechanical or other action of any mechanism whatever or in respect of any mode or principle of construction of the Article. No claim is made by virtue of this registration to any right to the exclusive use of the words, letters, numbers, or trade marks appearing in the representation. Dated:

Signature of the applicant/agent (Name of the Signatory)

THE FIRST SCHEDULE FEES No. of entry

On What possible

Form Fee (Rs.) No.

1

On application for registration of Design under  Section 5 & 44

1

1000.00

2

On claim under Section 8(1 ) to proceed as an  applicant or joint applicant

2

500.00

3

On application for extension of copyright under  Section 11(2)

3

2000.00

4

On Application for Restoration of lapsed design  under Section 12(2)

4

1000.00

5

Additional fee for Restoration

---

1000.00

6

Inspection of Registered design under Section  17(1)

5

500.00

7

On request for information of design when  registration No. is given under Section 18.

6

500.00

8

On request for information of design when  registration No. not given .

7

1000.00 Contd …

THE FIRST SCHEDULE FEES No. of entry

(Contd. from previous slide…)

On What possible

Form Fee (Rs.) No.

9

On application for cancellation of design under  Section 19

8

1500.00

10

Notice of intended exhibition or publication of an  unregistered design under Section 21

9

500.00

11

Application for registration of a document in  Register of Designs under Section 30(3): (i) In respect of one Design; (ii) For each additional Design

10

One application for entry of name of proprietor or  part proprietor in Register of Designs under Section  30: (i) In respect of one Design; (ii) For each additional Design

11

On application for entry of mortgage or license in  Register of designs under Section 30: (i) In respect of one Design; (ii) For each additional Design

12

12

13

500.00 200.00

500.00 200.00

500.00 200.00

THE FIRST SCHEDULE FEES

(Contd. from previous slide…)

No. of entry

On What possible

14

Application for entry of notification of a document in  the Register of designs under Section 30 and Rule  37:  (i) In respect of one Design; (ii) For each additional Design

13

15

On request for correction of clerical error under  Section 29

14

500.00

16

On request for certificate under Section 26 and  Rule 42

15

500.00

17

On application for certified copy of Registered  design Under Section 17(2)

16

500.00

18

On application for rectification of Register of  design Under Section 31

17

500.00

19

On application for extension of time for filing  priority Document under Rule 15.

18

200.00

On Notice of opposition under Rule 40

19

20

Form Fee (Rs.) No.

500.00 200.00

(per month)

100.00

THE FIRST SCHEDULE FEES No. of entry

(Contd. from previous slide…)

On What possible

Form Fee (Rs.) No.

21

Notice of intention to attend hearing under Rule  29 and 40

20

500.00

22

Form for authorization of agent or other person.

21

­­­­

23

On request to alter name or address or address  for Service in the Register of design under Rule  31.

22

200.00

24

On request for entries of two addresses in the  Register of Design.

23

200.00

25

On petition under Rule 46 for amendment of any  document

---

500.00

26

On petition under Rule 47 for amendment of any  document

---

500.00

27

Inspection of Register of Design under Rule 38 (in  respect of each design).

---

250.00

STAGES FROM FILING TO REGISTRATION Numbering & 

Filling of  Application Abandoned

Refusal Appeal to  High Court

Dating of  Application

Examination 

Noncompliance  of Objection (s)

Communication  of Objection (s)

Hearing if  objection (s) is  /are contested

Removal of  Objection (s)

Waiving /  removal of  Objection (s)

Acceptance

In case of allowance  of appeal

Re­ Examination

Notification in the  Official Gazette

Issue of Certificate

Application of Design in Industries Small Scale Industries:  Shoe, Chappal, Pen, Textile Goods, Carpet, Wall Clock, Ceramic Tiles, Plumbing Equipments, Sanitary Goods, Package, Chairs, Tables, Photo - Frame, Tiffin Box, Water Jug, Casserole, Water Bottle, Bags, Suitcase, Flower Vase, Ash-Tray, Tooth-Brush, Toy, Fan etc.

Medium Scale Industries:  Washing Machine, Refrigerator, Television, Computer, A.C. Machine, Wrist Watch, Mixer-Grinder, Vacuum Cleaner

More articles  Textiles dress materials  ,mobiles set,  cycle,  electrical appliances,  containers ,  Sports goods  other appliances

Consumer Products

Pharmaceutical Product

Textile & Jewellery

Example with a toothbrush Shape & Configuration signify something solid where an idea has been incorporated into the article.

Contd.

Example with a toothbrush Pattern or ornament or composition of colour / lines relates to something two dimensional.

Contd.

Example with a toothbrush When a figure, showing the feature of the design of an article, is drawn on a paper it will be regarded as if design has been applied to the article sought to be registered.

Contd.

Example with a toothbrush A new shape applied to toothbrush which produces a new visual appearance on the article.

Contd.

Example with a toothbrush Design means a conception or suggestion or idea of a shape or pattern which can be applied to an article by industrial process or means.

Contd.

Example with a toothbrush Any mode or principle of construction or operation or anything which is in substance a mere mechanical device, would not be registerable design.

Contd.

Example with a toothbrush The features of the design in the finished article should appeal to and are judged solely by the eye.

Contd.

Example with a toothbrush The design should be applied or applicable to any article by any industrial process.

Contd.

Example with a toothbrush Designs of artistic nature like paintings, sculptures and the like which are not produced in bulk by any industrial process are excluded from registration under the Act.

OVERLAP OF DESIGN, COPYRIGHT & TRADE MARK

Copyright & Design Design is for aesthetic appearance. Anything functional is not registrable as a design Copyright in a design comes to an end if the work has industrial application and is reproduced more than 50 times Is there diff. between copyright in a design and copyright in a drawing. Yes.

Confusion is worse with Trade mark definition being amended Shape is also a trade mark – But articles like dresses, sculpture etc., cannot come in trade marks. However commercial products have more overlaps in protection.

Design  As per Copinger and Skone James on Copyright, a design is, in broad

terms, the plan or scheme for the appearance of an article (or a part of an article).  It primarily concerns with what an article looks like or is intended to look

like.  It is not concerned with how an article performs its function. The design

of an article may be recorded in any form including the written description, sketch, drawing, photograph or it could actually be embodied in the article itself. “Design” has also been defined as the design of any aspect of the shape or configuration (whether internal or external) of the whole or part of an article. Copinger & Skone James on Copyright, 15th Edn., Vol. 1, pg. 730

Infringement  Infringement in the context of Indian Textiles, Apparels and Life Style

Industry: Indian Textiles:  If artistic patterns are drawn up on a piece of cloth to be used for any

purpose, including but not limited to for instance, making of garments, bed sheets, sofa covers, table cloths, etc., then the artistic patterns printed on the piece of cloth are protected as copyrights.  On the other hand, if a designer of clothes creates a new pattern of

garment to be used as a fashionable attire, then the sketch/ drawing that is drawn of the pattern of the garment is protected as a copyright.

Infringement  However, once the idea of the creative pattern is implemented on the

piece of cloth, then the same may be protected as a design right.  If, the intention of the designer is to ensure that only one piece of the

garment is manufactured, then the same could also be protected as the artistic work imprinted on the piece of cloth having copyrights.  Alternatively, if the designer’s intention is to produce several

thousands of garments in different scheme of colours, etc., then the intention of the designer is to use the said design in the industry. Accordingly, the latter form of use of the same material may be considered to be a design.  There is an ongoing debate on the issue and a lot depends on the

manner, in which the author of the work intends to use the work.

Indian Cases

Cases Tahiliani Design Private Ltd. vs. Renu Tandon & Anr. C.S. (OS) No. 2222 of 2008 – Before Hon’ble Delhi High Court

Cases Tahiliani Design Private Ltd. vs. Renu Tandon & Anr. C.S. (OS) No. 2222 of 2008 – Before Hon’ble Delhi High Court  Allegation that the Defendants’ garments were copies of the

garments designed and crafted by the Plaintiff  The said garments were supposed to be developed, designed

and crafted by the plaintiff as a part of their collection for the year 2006  The Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 21.10.2008

granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction

Cases Tahiliani Design Private Ltd. vs. Renu Tandon & Anr. C.S. (OS) No. 2222 of 2008 – Before Hon’ble Delhi High Court  Defendant served notice.  Application for vacation of stay moved claiming that both

designs are separate.  The impugned prints are generic Jamawar Prints  Matter is sub-judice – Referred to Mediation

Cases Suneet Varma Design Pvt. Ltd. Vs Jas Kirat Singh Narula & Anr. [2007 (34) PTC 81 (Del)]  Allegation of infringement of

copyright as the defendant used the dress in a movie which was worn by an actress

 Importance of costumes worn by

actors and actresses in a film play special role and serve purpose of promotion of the movie

 Held that all kinds of clothes worn

by actors cannot be stated as Fair Use permitted under sec 52 (1) (u).

Cases Microfibres Inc vs. Girdhar and Co. and Ors. : 2006(32) PTC 157 (Del)  Case relating to design of upholstery  Plaintiff claimed to have copyright in the artistic work applied to

upholstery design  Did not have a registered design however they claimed a

copyright in the drawings

Cases Microfibres Inc vs. Girdhar and Co. and Ors. : 2006(32) PTC 157 (Del)  Question was whether without a registered design, the plaintiff could

protect the same and whether the copyright was lost because of more than 50 reproduction of the said upholstery fabric design  The Court although upholding that the motives etc. of the plaintiff

was artistic and also holding that the defendants had copied it, on a legal and technical argument that more than 50 reproduction had been made, refused to grant injunction

Cases 1997(17) PTC 268: Baldev Singh vs. Shriram Footwear  Plaintiff claimed an injunction on the ground that his designs of

shoe soles had distinctive shape and configuration  During the course of argument, it was revealed that the plaintiff

himself had copied designs from Bata India Ltd.  Thus Court had held that the plaintiff himself being a pirater, no

injunction can be granted in favour of the plaintiff

Cases Hindustan Sanitaryware & Industries Ltd. vs. Dip Crafts Industries: 2003(26) PTC163 (Del)  Case under the Designs Act, 2000  Plaintiff had claimed that defendants copied the design “Stylush”,

“Corel” and “Ultra” in respect of bath tubs  Defendant had not established that he had been selling bath tubs prior to the registration obtained by plaintiff in respect of similar designs  Plaintiff had a registered design  Sufficient resemblance between the two designs and the plaintiff’s design was protected

Cases Metro Plastic Industries (Regd.) vs. M/s. Galaxy Footwear New Delhi: 2000(20) PTC 1  Judgment of full bench of Delhi High Court  Holds primarily that in a case filed for infringement of a design, the

defendant would be entitled to take a defence that the registration of the design itself was incorrect  Various grounds can be taken for claim that the registration was granted wrongly, namely, that the design is not new or original or unique  If any of the grounds can be proved, then the fact that the design is registered by itself, does not come to the aid of the plaintiff  Registration can be a proof at the first stage but it has to be established that this was not copied design and that it is a new and original

Cases Dabur India Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors 2008 (37) PTC 227  Suit filed alleging infringement of design in respect of a bottle    

which is being used by plaintiff for packing hair oil Court found plaintiff’s bottle to be common bottle used by several other companies Bottles were held to be in use much prior to the registration of the design of the plaintiff No peculiar feature of the bottle registered as a design and the plaintiff had not pin pointed any novelty in the design of the bottle Held that for validly of the registered design there must be some novelty and originality in the design sought to be protected and it must have not been pre-published

Cases Vikas Jain Vs. Aftab Ahmad And Ors, 2008 (37) PTC 288 (Del)  Suit filed for the infringement as well as passing off of design in     

Toy Scooter The defendant pleaded the prior publication of the design Another defense taken by the defendant was that the defendant too was having the registration of the design Court held that there were various dissimilarities in the prior published design The design of the defendant was identical to the design of the plaintiff Hence the defendant is not protected even on account of the registration having been obtained by it which admittedly is the subsequent registration

Cases Reckitt Benckiser Australia Pty Ltd. And Anr Vs. R. B. Impex And Ors 2008 (37) PTC 262 (Del)  Suit for infringement of a design, where the defendant had filed a

cancellation petition with the Controller of Designs  Proceedings pending before the controller of Design who had heard the arguments in the cancellation petition before him and the order had been reserved  Defendant had also sought the transfer of the cancellation proceedings from the Controller to the Hon’ble Delhi High Court  Hon’ble High Court declined to stay the proceedings pending before the Controller and to order for the transfer of those proceedings as there was no provision for the transfer of the cancellation proceedings under the Act

Cases Sat Pal Singh Vs. S.P. Engineering Works - 1982(2) PTC 193  Single Judge of this Court held that once a design was registered,





 

prima facie, it was only the registered proprietor, who could take benefit of the registered design The Court then negatived the contention that even if a false plea about the validity of registration was taken up by a Defendant, no interim injunction should be granted. The Court went on to hold that the contention that the design had no novelty was a valid defence to the Suit and could be raised to challenge the validity of the registration. It further held that this did not have any bearing at the initial stage and that these were matters to be decided on evidence. It must be mentioned that after so holding the Court, went into the merits and held that in that case it had not been shown that the design was previously published

Cases Faber Castell Vs. Pikpen - 2003 PTC 538  Faber Castell “Textliner”.  A dark green body  Unique cap of same colour as colour of

ink  Gold lettering on green body Regd design. Prior Publication could be through prior documents or some other prior user. Injunction granted

Cases Samsonite Vs. Vijay Sales 1998 PTC 372  Suitcases made by plaintiff copied

by defendant  The entire range was copied  Claim was based on drawings &

copyright  No registered design  No protection granted as it is

manufactured industrially more than 50 times.

Cases Preeti Gupta Vs. Rajendra Prahladkar 2002 PTC 64

 Design of photo-frames  Registered design  Defendant no.2 was an employee of

plaintiff  Injunction granted protecting the

copyright in the design of photoframes

International Cases

RADELY GOWNS Ltd. v COSTAS SPYROU and BROKE v SPINCERS DRESS DESIGN Ltd.(1975) FSR 455

 Plaintiff & defendant manufacture

ladies clothing.  Copyright claimed in 3 stages of Manufacturing Procedure viz., - design sketches, - cutting patterns - prototype garments

RADELY GOWNS Ltd. v COSTAS SPYROU and BROKE v SPINCERS DRESS DESIGN Ltd.(1975) FSR 455  Def argued       

Prototype is not work of artis.crtms. No one author is involved Cutting patterns are functional One of the sketches was copied from earlier dress Dress could not reproduce a sketch Stiffness was to be given otherwise it is not a dress Delay

RADELY GOWNS Ltd. v COSTAS SPYROU and BROKE v SPINCERS DRESS DESIGN Ltd.(1975) FSR 455  Court Held:  





It is work of A.C Need not unite with one author Dress can be a 3 dimensional reproduction of a sketch Huge diff between the earlier dress and new one, hence plaintiff work is original

BRIGID FOLEY Ltd. v ELLOT (1982) RPC 433

It has been observed that if there is a direct copying from a garment which one person has designed and produced by himself, doing all the cutting , stitching, and so on, there might be a case for saying that there would be a breach of doing that.

BERNSTEIN v SYDNEY MURRAY(1981) RPC 303  The plaintiffs were owners of

copyright in certain sketches for ladies’ garments in which the garments were shown as worn by ladies. They had displayed garments made from such sketches in fashion shows and shop windows. Defendants have copied the dresses produced from plaintiff’s sketches. It was held that this constituted infringement of copyright in sketches.

BURKE and MARGOT BURKE Ltd. v SPINCERS DRESS DESIGNS (1936) CH D 400  The plaintiff’s

alleged that defendants had infringed the copyright in the sketch described as “ frock being worn by a young lady ” It was also alleged that there was infringement of artistic copyrights in dresses made up by the plaintiff’s in accordance with those sketches, which dress themselves were said to be works of artistic craftsmanship It was held that thee was no infringement of a sketch by a frock.

In MERLET v MOTHERCARE Ltd (1986) RPC 115  The plaintiff made a prototype baby

cape for her child.  The cape was subsequently manufactured by the second plaintiff.  The defendants copied the plaintiff’s garments and made baby cape in accordance with the copy.  The plaintiff claiming the handmade prototype garment as a work of craftsmanship it was not a work of artistic craftsmanship brought an action for infringement of copyright.

In MERLET v MOTHERCARE Ltd (1986) RPC 115  It was held that though the prototype

was a work of craftsmanship it was not a work of artistic craftsmanship.  It was held that in approaching the question the garment has to be considered by itself and neither as worn nor as containing a baby.  No aesthetic satisfaction unless worn on the baby  Action was dismissed. An appeal against infringement of certain drawings was dismissed.

KOMESAROFF v MICKLE (1988) RPC 204

 A product called (moving sand

pictures) comprising a mixture of liquid, colored sands, and a layer of air bubbles encased within two glass panels was held not a work of artistic craftsmanship.  They are functional – not regd

design

Cases  MERCANDISING CORPORATION v

HARPBOND(1983) FSR 32 P, 32 (Facial make-up was not held a painting within the meaning of sec 3 of the U.K. copyright act.)

Ford Motor Co.1993 RPC 399  Vehicle parts are not subject matter of design because’ they have no

value in commerce except as part of a vehicle  Mirrors, seats, etc., were capable of registration as substitution was

possible without affecting shape of the vehicle.  The distinction that seems to have been drawn is that there are several

parts which are mostly hidden and never seen, such parts cannot be registered as designs.  However, parts and their circuits if in drawing form are artistic works

George Hensher Ltd s. Restawile Upholstery 1975 RPC 31  Upholstered chairs & settees.  One prototype was evolved – chairs were copied from it and

sold  Def. copied the chairs and hence the prototype  Trial Court granted injunction. Appeal court dismissed the injunction. HL refused protection

George Hensher Ltd s. Restawile Upholstery 1975 RPC 31  Artistic craftsmanship need not necessarily mean “work of art”.  The product may be a commercial success but need not be of

Art craftsmanship

Merchandising Corpn Vs. Harpbond 1983 FSR 32  Adam from the pop group Adam &

Ants  New look for himself with Red-Indian

face markings  Two red lines in grease paint, light

blue line in between, heart over left eyebrow & a beauty spot  Def. made a poster of it & made a

portrait & superimposed new look over an old poster  In infringement action court held that

this is not a painting and hence not protectable.

Animal Fair Inc., Vs. Amfesco Inds 227 USPQ 817 (1985)  Novelty slippers  Resembles a bear’s foot or paw  Slipper’s design features separate

from its utilitarian features, incl. impractical width of sole, shape of sole, profile of slipper, toes which are unrelated to function and copyrightable.  Injunction granted.

Conclusion Technological advancement made the job of the creator easy ………it also made the job of the copier easy. Consciousness in IPR is the only way to prevent the latter.