The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Kamdhenu Limited vs Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltdconsisting of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajanobserved that it is difficult to accept that a pattern, which is a standard to identify a particular grade, can be registered as a design under the Designs Act, 2000.
Facts
The appellant (‘Kamdhenu’) filed this intra-court appeal impugning the judgement (‘the impugned judgement’), whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the application filed by the respondent (‘Aashiana’) under O13A CPC and dismissed the suit filed by Kamdhenu. The appellant filed the said suit alleging infringement of its registered design regarding the surface pattern on steel rods. The learned Single Judge had found that the design in question was a prior published design and held that the registration of the said design was contrary to Section 4 of the Designs Act, 2000 (‘the Act’).
Contentions Made
Petitioner: Court had erred in not appreciating that there can be multitude of surface patterns complying with the given standard. Consequently, the Court had erred in proceeding on the basis that the said design was not novel as it conforms to the British Standard B500C. The said design of Kamdhenu was like the British Standard “Steel for the reinforcement of concrete – Weldable reinforcing steel – Bar, coil and decoiled product – Specification”.Court had erred in summarily dismissing the suit under O13A CPCwithout affording Kamdhenu any opportunity to lead evidence.
Observations of the Court
The Benchnoted that Kamdhenu claims novelty in the pattern comprising a set of two transverse ribs with different acute angles and that the surface pattern was precisely the standard that was published.
It was also noted that the surface pattern as specified under the British Standard B500C is a marking to identify that the steel bar is of a particular grade. It is difficult to accept that a pattern, which is a standard to identify a particular grade, can be registered as a design. The logical sequitur of accepting that Kamdhenu would have a monopoly over the surface pattern that is required to identify a particular grade of steel is that the product manufactured by Kamdhenu would be identified as the sole product of the specified grade, which cannot be accepted.
It further noted that a minuscule alteration in the angles would not in any manner change the pattern as visually discernible. Relying on various judgments like Gaskell & Chambers Ltd. v. Measure Master Ltd., Steelbird Hi-Tech India Ltd. v. S.P.S. Gambhir & Ors. and Western Engineering Co. v. Paul Engineering Co. it was reiterated that the definition itself lays emphasis on the fact that the sameness of the features is to be decided by the eye by seeing the two and getting a total synoptic view of the same.
Judgment
The Bench concluded that the said design is incapable of registration and therefore, was liable to be cancelled u/s 19 of the Act.It also held that there was no requirement for leading any further evidence and the material on record was sufficient to return the decision in the suit instituted by Kamdhenu. The appeal was dismissedaccordingly.
Case:Kamdhenu Limitedvs Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd
Citation: RFA(OS)(COMM) 4/2021 and CM Nos. 21961/2021, 21962/ 2021 & 21963/2021
Bench: Justice Vibhu Bakhru, Justice Amit Mahajan
Decided on: 5th August 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
