Other — India Design Cases
9 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 9 total
M/s Mold Tek Packaging Limited v.S.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.
Essdee Industries Through Proprietor v.Esbee Electrotech LLP
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.
Win Plast Ltd v.Symphony Ltd
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.
Reckitt Benkiser India Ltd v.Wyeth Ltd.
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.
M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
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.
M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
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.
M/S. Nikhil Adhesives Ltd. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
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.
Metco Polymers Pvt. Limited v.Madhu Inflatables Pvt. Limited
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.
Metro Plastic Industries (Regd) v.M/S. Galaxy Footwear New Delhi
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.
Protecting your design rights?
Design disputes move fast. Arctic's IP team specializes in interim relief, design invalidation, and cross-border enforcement strategies.