Short Summary
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.
Detailed Summary
of the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request for extension of time filed by the Bosch defendants. The judge-rapporteur rejected Bosch's request, finding that a non-redacted version of Valeo's 15 June 2026 filing had been deposited in the CMS simultaneously with the redacted version, and that Bosch had failed to exercise due diligence in accessing it. The court ruled that the deadlines under R.29(d) RdP run from 15 June 2026.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in design matters before Delhi High Court - Orders. Understanding the court's reasoning in Britannia Industries Ltd vs ITC Ltd is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Nec CorporationvsThe Controller Of Patents And Designs
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.
Atomberg Technologies Private LimitedvsLuker Electric Technologies Private Limited
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.
Udaykumar Chabidas PatelvsController of Patents and Designs & Anr.
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.
Udaykumar Chabidas PatelvsController of Patents and Designs & Anr.
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.
BaskarvsCPIO, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, DPIIT, RTI Cell
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.
M/s Mold Tek Packaging LimitedvsS.D. Containers
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.
Protecting your design rights?
Design disputes move fast. Arctic's IP team specializes in interim relief, design invalidation, and cross-border enforcement strategies.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.