Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: "surface pattern" in Kamdhenu Limited vs Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd on 5 August, 2022Matching Fragments
VIBHU BAKHRU, J INTRODUCTION
1. The appellant (hereafter 'Kamdhenu') has filed the present intra-court appeal impugning the judgement dated 12.05.2021 (hereafter 'the impugned judgement'), whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the application filed by the respondent (hereafter 'Aashiana') under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereafter 'the CPC') and dismissed the suit filed by Kamdhenu, being CS (COMM) 90/2018. The appellant had filed the said suit alleging infringement of its registered design regarding the surface pattern on steel rods.
17. The principal question to be addressed is whether the published standard - British Standard BS4449-2005 for B500C - constitutes a prior publication of the surface design, so as to render the registration of the said design contrary to Section 4 of the Act.
18. The image of the product manufactured by Kamdhenu is set out below:
19. In the present case, the surface patterns for Grade B500C bars are relevant. Admittedly, the said design conforms to the surface pattern as published in the British Standard (BS4449:2005). According to Kamdhenu, the surface pattern on its product is "equivalent to British Standard B500C" and is "at par" with the said standard.
28. It is apparent that the surface pattern is precisely the standard that was published. It is correct that the published standard does permit a set of transverse ribs with different angles. However, the same has no material effect on the surface pattern.
29. Mr. Bansal's contention as to novelty, which is premised on the basis that a minute change in the angle of two transverse ribs would result in a different design, is unpersuasive. First of all, Kamdhenu has obtained the registration in respect of the said design by claiming novelty in the surface pattern of the two ribs without specifying the angles of the two ribs. Thus, the novelty claimed is not in respect of any specified angle but of a general pattern of the two transverse angular ribs, which were marked as 'A' and 'B' in the Representation Sheet. Clearly, such angular transverse ribs are not a novel design but are disclosed by the published standards.
37. It is material to note that the surface pattern as specified under the British Standard B500C is a marking for identification of the steel grade. Paragraph 10.2 of the British Standard: BS4449-2005 requires that Grade B500C bars carry the surface pattern in question as a mark of identification. The purpose, inter alia, is 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. Clearly, the same cannot be accepted.