M/S. Selvel Industries v. M/S. Om Plast (India)

In the world of consumer products, a container's shape is more than just function—it's a brand's silent signature. When a competitor copies that signature down to the curve and contour, the law steps in. But how do courts decide when two products are 'too similar'? A 2016 design infringement battle between two plastic container manufacturers offers a masterclass in how the overall impression test can make or break a design owner's case.

M/S. Selvel Industries and M/S. Sears Industries, the plaintiffs, held registered designs for plastic containers. They alleged that M/S. Om Plast (India), the defendant, was manufacturing and selling plastic containers that copied their protected designs. To stop the alleged infringement in its tracks, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Motion seeking interim relief from the court. The core question before the court was straightforward but consequential: did the defendant's product infringe upon the plaintiffs' registered designs?

The plaintiffs argued that the defendant's plastic container was deceptively similar to their own registered design, effectively riding on the visual identity they had built and protected. They contended that the overall look and feel of the defendant's product mirrored theirs so closely that it would confuse consumers and dilute the distinctiveness of their registered design. The defendant, on the other hand, presumably sought to distinguish its product, likely arguing that any differences—no matter how minor—were enough to defeat the claim of infringement. The legal friction centered on a critical question: should the court dissect the products feature by feature, or step back and assess the impression they leave as a whole?

The court sided with the plaintiffs. It found that the defendant's plastic container was deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered design and constituted an infringement. Crucially, the court applied the principle under the Designs Act, 2000, that the assessment of similarity must be based on the overall impression conveyed by the products—not on a granular, side-by-side dissection of individual features. This overall impression test tipped the scales in favor of the plaintiffs, and interim relief was granted to protect their design rights.

For founders and IP professionals, this case delivers a vital lesson: when defending or asserting a design, don't get trapped in a feature-by-feature comparison. The law looks at the total visual impact a product leaves on a consumer's mind. If your registered design is being copied, focus your argument on the overall impression of similarity rather than isolated details. Conversely, if you're building a competing product, understand that minor tweaks won't save you if the overall impression remains deceptively similar to a registered design. Register your designs early, document their distinct visual identity, and remember—in design law, the whole is far greater than the sum of its parts.