Gopal Glass Works Ltd. v. Assistant Controller Of Patents And ...

null

Gopal Glass Works Ltd. appealed an order by the Assistant Controller directing the cancellation of Design No. 190336, which protected their industrial design for figured glass sheets. The respondent argued that the design was not new or original due to prior publication and ownership issues. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the cancellation order.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Calcutta High Court
Case Number
null
Judge(s)
Indira Banerjee

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in design matters before Calcutta High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Gopal Glass Works Ltd. vs Assistant Controller Of Patents And ... is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

designAID No. 5 of 1999

Khadim Shoe Pvt. Ltd.vsBata India Ltd.

Khadim Shoe Pvt. Ltd. filed an application seeking cancellation of Bata India Ltd.'s registered design (No. 177386) on the ground that it was published prior to registration. Khadim presented evidence, including print advertisements and television footage shown in slow motion, arguing that the public had been made aware of the design before its official registration.

designAID No. 13 of 2010

M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd.vsThe Assistant Controller Of Patents and Designs & Anr.

M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd. appealed against an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that allowed a cancellation application under Section 19 of the 2000 Act. The appellant argued that the design was created while its director, Mr. Saraswat, was employed with them, making the subsequent use by his new company improper.

designAID No.9 of 2008

Anchor Health And Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd.vsThe Controller Of Patents And Designs & Another

The appellant challenged the Controller's decision to uphold the registration of several toothbrush designs, arguing they lacked novelty and were merely trade variants. The court found that certain registered designs were not original or new, particularly when compared to earlier published designs, leading to the setting aside of the Controller's order.

designAID No. 7 of 2010

Lucky ExportsvsThe Controller Of Patents And Designs and Ors.

Lucky Exports appealed against the rejection of its application for cancellation of a design registration (Coaster Brake Hub). The appellant argued that the respondent's design was not novel because advertisements were published publicly before the registration date. The court found merit in this argument, noting the prior public disclosures.

designnull

The Calico Printers AssociationvsAhmed Abdul Karim Bros., Limited

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.

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 →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar design matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call