Transcript
Industrial Design
Evolution of Competition
Traditional product Technology Pricing of product Quality of Product Design differential
1
“When companies are competing at equal price & functionality Design is the only differential that matters”
– Mark Dziersk, quoted in TIME Magazine
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
What is an industrial Design
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) (b)
(c) (d )
A design whichis not new or original; or 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 comprises or contains scandalous or obscene matter
shall not be registered
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. different views of the article for clear understanding the nature of article.
Representation: Four sets of Representation with the
Declaration :-
Statement of novelty and disclaimers.
Power of Attorney : (If required).
Filing of Design Application
KOLKATA H.O.
Receiving & Examination
Delhi
Mumbai
Chennai
Receiving Center
Receiving Center 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
(1) STATEMENT OF NOVELTY (2) DISCLAIMER Signature of Applicant
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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 On What possible
On application for registration of Design under Section 5 & 44 On claim under Section 8(1 ) to proceed as an applicant or joint applicant On application for extension of copyright under Section 11(2) On Application for Restoration of lapsed design under Section 12(2) Additional fee for Restoration Inspection of Registered design under Section 17(1) On request for information of design when registration No. is given under Section 18. On request for information of design when registration No. not given .
Form Fee (Rs.) No. 1 2 3 4 --5 6 7 1000.00 500.00 2000.00 1000.00 1000.00 500.00 500.00 1000.00 Contd …
THE FIRST SCHEDULE FEES
No. of entry
9 10 11
(Contd. from previous slide…) Form Fee (Rs.) No.
8 9 10 500.00 200.00 11 500.00 200.00 12 500.00 200.00 1500.00 500.00
On What possible
On application for cancellation of design under Section 19 Notice of intended exhibition or publication of an unregistered design under Section 21 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 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
12
13
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
THE FIRST SCHEDULE FEES
No. of entry 14 On What possible
(Contd. from previous slide…) Form Fee (Rs.) No. 13
500.00 200.00
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
15 16 17 18 19 20
On request for correction of clerical error under Section 29
14 15 16 17 18 19
500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 200.00
(per month)
On request for certificate under Section 26 and Rule 42 On application for certified copy of Registered design Under Section 17(2) On application for rectification of Register of design Under Section 31 On application for extension of time for filing priority Document under Rule 15. On Notice of opposition under Rule 40
100.00
THE FIRST SCHEDULE FEES
No. of entry 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 On What possible
(Contd. from previous slide…) Form Fee (Rs.) No. 20 21 22 23 ------500.00
Notice of intention to attend hearing under Rule 29 and 40 Form for authorization of agent or other person. On request to alter name or address or address for Service in the Register of design under Rule 31. On request for entries of two addresses in the Register of Design. On petition under Rule 46 for amendment of any document On petition under Rule 47 for amendment of any document Inspection of Register of Design under Rule 38 (in respect of each design).
---200.00
200.00 500.00 500.00 250.00
Filling of Application Abandoned
STAGES FROM FILING TO REGISTRATION Numbering & Dating of
Application
Noncompliance of Objection (s)
Examination
Communication of Objection (s)
Refusal
Hearing if objection (s) is /are contested Waiving / removal of Objection (s)
Removal of Objection (s)
Re- Examination
Appeal to High Court
Acceptance
Notification in the Official Gazette
In case of allowance of appeal
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.