Design Cases

28 decisions across India

India 28

Page 1 of 1

design plaintiff favorable · Mar 9, 2026

Nec Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs

Calcutta High Court · P72363576

The appeal challenged the rejection of designs related to GUIs on display screens. The respondent authorities adopted a narrow interpretation, arguing that GUIs are mere software and not registrable articles. The High Court ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that the existing legal definitions must be interpreted expansively to recognize GUIs as industrial designs.
design defendant favorable · Jul 25, 2025

Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v.Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited

Bombay High Court · P105038357

Atomberg Technologies Private Limited appealed the Single Judge's order dismissing its interim injunction application against Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited. Atomberg alleged that Luker had fraudulently obtained registrations for ceiling fans that infringed upon Atomberg's registered design (No. 309694). The dispute also involved claims of passing off due to similarity in aesthetic features and market presence. However, the Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no grounds to interfere with the lower court's discretion.
design dismissed · Sep 19, 2024

Udaykumar Chabidas Patel v.Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) · P107016683

The petitioner filed an application before the Calcutta High Court complaining about the delay in the disposal of his pending application before the Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata. The said application sought the cancellation of a registered design belonging to another party. The court disposed of the petition without passing any order.
design dismissed · Sep 19, 2024

Udaykumar Chabidas Patel v.Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) · P175753371

The petitioner filed an application before the Calcutta High Court complaining about the delay in the disposal of his pending application before the Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata. The said application sought the cancellation of a registered design belonging to another party. The court disposed of the petition without passing any order.
design interim order · Apr 23, 2024

Britannia Industries Ltd v.ITC Ltd

Delhi High Court - Orders · 126265625

This case involves a dispute over the validity of a registered design used on 'Good Day' Biscuits labels. The defendant, ITC Ltd, sought summary judgment arguing that the design was not registrable under Section 19(1)(d) and Section 4(b) of the Designs Act, citing prior public disclosure. Britannia Industries Ltd countered this by seeking to place additional documents on record, which they claimed would correct an error in their user claim date. The court adjourned the matter to determine the admissibility of these crucial documents.
design defendant favorable · Jun 26, 2023

Baskar v.CPIO, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, DPIIT, RTI Cell

Central Information Commission · 131036413

The appellant filed an appeal seeking detailed information about objections and classification of their design patent application (367649-001) under the Designs Act, 2000. The CPIO denied the request, arguing that the procedural aspects of design examination are governed by the Designs Act and Rules, not the RTI Act. The Commission upheld this stance, citing precedents on the limited scope of public information.
design mixed · Sep 1, 2021

M/s Mold Tek Packaging Limited v.S.D. Containers

Madhya Pradesh High Court · 194088790

This judgment addresses a complex jurisdictional dispute arising from a civil suit filed by M/s Mold Tek Packaging Limited against S.D. Containers regarding disputed designs. The core issue was whether the High Court had the authority to entertain the defendant's counterclaim seeking cancellation of the design registration, alongside the plaintiff's declaration and injunction suit. The court affirmed its jurisdiction, interpreting the Design Act, 2000, to allow a defendant to raise all grounds for cancellation (under Section 19) in their written statement/counterclaim.
design defendant favorable · Dec 14, 2020

Essdee Industries Through Proprietor v.Esbee Electrotech LLP

Bombay High Court · 17789938

This writ petition challenged an order by the District Court that allowed the plaintiff to withdraw a composite suit involving claims of trademark/passing-off infringement and registered design infringement. The defendant argued that raising a defense under Section 19 of the Designs Act mandated the transfer of the entire suit to the High Court. However, the Bombay High Court held that since the plaintiff sought withdrawal—not further prosecution—the District Court retained its jurisdiction to permit the split. The court clarified that while Section 22(4) governs the continuation of the suit upon raising a cancellation defense, it does not prevent the court from allowing the plaintiff to withdraw and file separate suits for distinct causes of action.
design defendant favorable · Aug 23, 2018

M/S Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd v.M/S Kamdhenu Ltd

Delhi High Court · 191599286

This appeal addressed an interim injunction sought by Kamdhenu Ltd against M/S Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd for alleged infringement of a registered design on TMT steel bars. Kamdhenu claimed its unique surface pattern was protected, while Aashiana argued that the design merely replicated a widely accepted British Standard (BS 4449:2005). The Delhi High Court ultimately set aside the injunction, finding that Kamdhenu's registration was suspect because it relied on a commonly applicable standard available in the public domain.
design mixed · Jan 18, 2017

Kent Ro Systems Ltd v.Amit Kotak

Delhi High Court · 163813330

Kent Ro Systems Ltd filed a suit alleging that Defendant No. 1 was manufacturing and selling water purifiers whose design infringed upon their registered designs. The plaintiffs also sought relief against the online marketplace, eBay (Defendant No. 2), for facilitating this infringement. While the court granted an injunction in favor of Kent Ro Systems against the manufacturer, it ultimately declined to impose proactive screening or vigilance duties on the e-commerce intermediary, citing that such a requirement would be an unreasonable interference with its business rights.
design defendant favorable · Jan 9, 2017

M/S Maya Appliances Private Limited v.Butterfly Gandhimathi Appliances Ltd.

Madras High Court · 108011813

M/S Maya Appliances Private Limited filed applications seeking temporary injunction against Butterfly Gandhimathi Appliances Ltd., alleging infringement of a registered design and passing off. The Madras High Court examined the claims under the Designs Act, 2000, and found that the petitioner's design did not satisfy the necessary legal tests in this context. Consequently, the court dismissed the applications for temporary injunction but directed both parties to file relevant documents and monthly sales statements as part of the ongoing suit.
design plaintiff favorable · Oct 7, 2015

Jasper Motors Private Limited v.The Proprietor, Basantee Battery Operated Rickshaw & Ors.

Calcutta High Court · 151846811

The plaintiff, Jasper Motors Private Limited, filed a suit regarding matters arising under the Patents and Design Act. The court initially faced issues regarding the admission of the plaint and whether proper leave had been obtained under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The court ultimately granted the necessary leave and admitted the plaint.
design defendant favorable · Jul 27, 2015

Win Plast Ltd v.Symphony Ltd

Gujarat High Court · 23425708

Win Plast Ltd appealed an order passed in Civil Suit No. 2 of 2015 regarding alleged infringement of a registered design related to an air cooler. The appellant challenged the jurisdiction and the basis of the interim relief, arguing that the suit was based on mere apprehension and should have been filed in Mumbai. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Single Judge's order.
design mixed · Mar 15, 2013

Reckitt Benkiser India Ltd v.Wyeth Ltd.

Delhi High Court · 3849421

This Delhi High Court judgment addresses complex issues surrounding design rights under the Designs Act, 2000. The court specifically examined whether a design registered in a Paris Convention country can serve as grounds for cancelling an Indian-registered design. A key focus was defining 'prior publication,' clarifying that mere existence of a design in a foreign public record is not automatically sufficient; it must possess complete clarity to be understood by the eye of the mind regarding its application to a specific article. The court directed further proceedings to determine the factual merits.
design remanded · May 17, 2011

Lucky Exports v.The Controller Of Patents & Designs & Ors.

Calcutta High Court · P648652

Lucky Exports appealed against the rejection of its application for cancellation of a registered design. The appellant argued that the design was prior published, evidenced by sales and advertisements from 2003-2005. The High Court set aside the Controller's order due to non-appreciation of material evidence and remanded the matter back to the Controller for consideration of merits.
design remanded · May 17, 2011

Lucky Exports v.The Controller Of Patents & Designs & Ors.

Calcutta High Court · 1655060

Lucky Exports appealed a rejection order by the Controller of Patents, challenging the decision that its registered design could not be cancelled. The appellant argued that the design had been prior published and that the Controller failed to consider crucial evidence from a suit filed in Ludhiana. The High Court set aside the Controller's order due to non-appreciation of materials and remanded the matter for further consideration.
design dismissed · Jan 13, 2011

M/S.Avanti Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S. Arjan Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Calcutta High Court · 90343124

M/S. Avanti Overseas Pvt. Ltd. appealed against an order passed by a learned single Judge refusing to condone the delay in filing an application for restoration of an appeal under Section 36 of the Designs Act, 2000. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the impugned order was not appealable before the Division Bench.
design interim order · Jan 6, 2011

M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.

Calcutta High Court · P124533764

M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd. challenged the order dated 30th June, 2010, which cancelled their registered design citing prior publication. The court found prima facie grounds to warrant a stay of this cancellation order.
design interim order · Jan 6, 2011

M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.

Calcutta High Court · P154984391

M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd challenged the order dated June 30, 2010, which sought to cancel a registered design due to alleged prior publication. The court found that the basis for this finding was questionable.
design interim order · Jan 6, 2011

M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.

Calcutta High Court · 108826315

M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd. challenged the cancellation of its registered design by The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr., which was based on alleged prior publication. The High Court found the basis for this finding questionable and granted a stay on the impugned order.
design interim order · Jun 12, 2008

C. A. Polytech Pvt. Ltd. v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.

Calcutta High Court · 91993010

The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The court found that there was no delay in filing the appeal, making it admissible under the Designs Act, 2000. Consequently, the court admitted the appeal and stayed certain conflicting observations made previously.
design mixed · Sep 13, 2005

Metco Polymers Pvt. Limited v.Madhu Inflatables Pvt. Limited

Madras High Court · 1670382

This appeal before the Madras High Court addressed a dispute over registered designs for inflatable products like Air Water Beds. The plaintiffs sought permanent and interim injunctions against the respondents, alleging infringement of their design rights. However, the respondents argued that they had been manufacturing similar products prior to the registration date, invoking defenses related to prior publication under the Designs Act. The court clarified the scope of Section 22(3), holding that cancellation grounds are available at the interim stage, but ultimately directed the respondents to maintain accounts for potential future damages.
design remanded · Dec 10, 1999

Metro Plastic Industries (Regd) v.M/S. Galaxy Footwear New Delhi

Delhi High Court · 1313213

The Full Bench addressed the legal question of whether a registered design owner can obtain an injunction for infringement when a concurrent application challenging the validity of that registration under Section 51-A is pending. The court reviewed various precedents, noting conflicting views on the matter.
design plaintiff favorable · Sep 26, 1972

Ampro Food Products v.Ashoka Biscuit Works And Ors.

Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) · 1766312

Ampro Food Products filed a suit for permanent injunction against Ashoka Biscuit Works for piracy of its registered biscuit design ('AF'). The lower court refused the temporary injunction, arguing that the design was not new or original and that it should be treated as a trademark. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the defense of non-originality is precluded when an express remedy for cancellation exists under the Designs Act, and clarified the difference between design rights and trademark rights.
design interim order · Dec 5, 1940

Dwarkadas Dhanji Sha v.Chhotalal Ravicarandas And Co.

Bombay High Court · 1610629

The plaintiffs claimed ownership of a registered textile design and sued for infringement. The defendants argued that the design was previously published and therefore invalid. The court addressed whether the registration certificate is conclusive proof of originality or if prior publication could be raised as a defense.
design plaintiff favorable · Jun 16, 1938

The Calico Printers Association v.Ahmed Abdul Karim Bros., Limited

Bombay High Court · 1591104

The Calico Printers Association sued Ahmed Abdul Karim Bros., Limited for infringing their two registered textile designs through the import and sale of imitation printed goods. Although the defendants admitted to innocent infringement, they offered a settlement including payment of profits (Rs. 199). The court ultimately granted an injunction in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded damages equal to the admitted profits.
design plaintiff favorable · Mar 11, 1938

The Calico Printers Association v.Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Limited

Bombay High Court · 987436

The Calico Printers Association sued Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Limited for infringing a registered textile design. The core legal issue was whether the defendants were joint tortfeasors with an intermediary, Mustak & Co., and whether the acts constituting infringement occurred within British India. The court ultimately allowed the appeal and granted an injunction.
design plaintiff favorable · Oct 5, 1937

The Calico Printers Association v.Savani And Co.

Bombay High Court · 801566

The Calico Printers Association sued Savani And Co. for infringing their registered textile design used on saries. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants imported Japanese prints whose borders were identical to or an obvious imitation of the plaintiff's protected design. The court found in favor of the plaintiffs, granting a decree for infringement.
Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Protecting your design rights?

Design disputes move fast. Arctic's IP team specializes in interim relief, design invalidation, and cross-border enforcement strategies.

Speak to a specialist →