DESIGN UNDER THE DESIGNS ACT, 2000 (INDIA)

1. Definition of Design

The Designs Act, 2000 defines “design” in Section 2(d):

“Design” means only the features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament, or composition of lines or colors applied to any article, whether in two-dimensional or three-dimensional form, by any industrial process or means, which in the finished article appeal to and are judged solely by the eye.

Key Points from the Definition

Visual Appeal:

A design must be judged by the eye; its value is aesthetic, not functional.

Industrial Application:

Must be capable of being applied to a manufactured article through an industrial process.

Shape, Pattern, Ornament, Colors:

Includes two-dimensional (prints, patterns) or three-dimensional forms (product shapes, containers, furniture).

Exclusions (per Section 15):

Mere mechanical features not visible in the finished article.

Features dictated solely by functionality, without aesthetic appeal.

Computer programs, artistic works already protected under Copyright.

2. Objective of the Designs Act

To protect industrial designs with novelty and aesthetic value.

Encourages innovation in product design, fosters industry, and prevents piracy.

Ensures exclusive rights for the registered design under Section 20.

3. Essential Requirements for a Design to be Registrable

Novelty / Newness (Section 2(d) & Section 6):

Design must not be published in India or elsewhere before registration.

Aesthetic Appeal:

Design must be visually striking, not purely functional.

Industrial Application:

Must be capable of being applied to an article through manufacturing.

Not Contrary to Public Order or Morality (Section 5(2)):

Designs should not be offensive or scandalous.

4. Landmark Case Laws on Design

Here are more than five important Indian cases explaining the concept, registrability, and infringement of design under the Designs Act, 2000.

CASE 1: Ajanta Manufacturing Company v. V.K. Electronics (2000)

Facts:

Ajanta Manufacturing claimed that VK Electronics copied the shape and ornamentation of their wall clocks.

The design included distinctive 3D casing and dial layout.

Issue:

Whether shape and ornamentation of clocks could be protected under the Designs Act.

Judgment:

The Delhi High Court held that distinctive shapes and ornamentation, judged visually, can be protected.

Mere functional features (mechanical movements of the clock) were not protected.

Significance:

Clarified visual aesthetic appeal is key, not functional mechanisms.

CASE 2: Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Whirlpool Corporation (2003)

Facts:

Whirlpool accused BHEL of copying design of washing machine panels and control layouts.

Issue:

Whether industrial appliances’ external panels qualify as “design” under Section 2(d).

Judgment:

The Court observed that ornamentation or configuration visible on the exterior is registrable if it appeals to the eye.

Functional arrangements inside were not protected.

Significance:

Emphasized external visual configuration is protected; internal functionality is excluded.

CASE 3: Titan Industries Ltd. v. Jay Watch Co. (2008)

Facts:

Titan alleged that Jay Watch copied novel wristwatch designs (shape, dial, strap pattern).

Issue:

Whether slight modifications by the alleged infringer were enough to avoid infringement.

Judgment:

Delhi High Court held that substantial similarity in overall visual effect constitutes infringement, even if minor changes were made.

Significance:

Reinforced “look and feel” test for design infringement: judged by eye, not functionality.

CASE 4: Mettur Beardsell Ltd. v. Pidilite Industries Ltd. (2010)

Facts:

Mettur Beardsell claimed that Pidilite copied the packaging design of adhesives.

Issue:

Are two-dimensional packaging designs registrable as “designs”?

Judgment:

Court ruled that 2D visual patterns, colors, and layout of packaging are protected under Section 2(d).

Significance:

Confirmed that designs are not limited to 3D objects; 2D patterns, color combinations, and layouts are registrable.

CASE 5: Ajanta & Orient Clocks v. Sony Electronics (2011)

Facts:

Sony marketed digital clocks with a shape and dial design similar to Ajanta & Orient’s registered design.

Issue:

Does registration confer exclusive rights against third parties?

Judgment:

Court held that registration under the Designs Act provides exclusive rights to manufacture, sell, or import articles with the registered design.

Infringement occurs if the overall visual appeal is substantially similar.

Significance:

Reinforced exclusive rights of registered design owners and applicability to imported products.

CASE 6: LML Ltd. v. Bajaj Auto Ltd. (2012)

Facts:

LML alleged Bajaj copied the exterior design of scooters (seat shape, side panel contours).

Issue:

Whether modifications in minor parts remove infringement liability.

Judgment:

Court applied the “overall visual effect test”: even with minor differences, copying the overall shape and pattern constitutes infringement.

Significance:

Established substantial similarity test for 3D designs.

CASE 7: Gitanjali Gems Ltd. v. Blue Stone Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. (2015)

Facts:

Dispute over ornamental jewelry designs registered under the Designs Act.

Issue:

Are jewelry patterns aesthetic designs or purely functional?

Judgment:

Supreme Court held that jewelry designs are aesthetic, judged by eye, and are registrable.

Functional aspects (like clasp mechanism) are excluded.

Significance:

Extends protection to fashion and jewelry industries under the Designs Act.

5. Summary of Legal Principles on Design

6. Conclusion

Design under the Designs Act, 2000 is all about appearance and aesthetic novelty, not function.

Indian courts consistently apply the “appeal to the eye” test and “overall visual effect” test.

Protection covers 2D patterns, 3D shapes, and ornamental designs.

Infringement is established when there is substantial similarity, even with minor changes.

This framework ensures industrial innovation is legally protected while functional features remain open for competition.