Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The contentions of the applicant before the controller are summarized below.

In the application for registration novelty is claimed in all views for the whole shape, configuration and surface pattern of the Chair. 'Original' means that the design originating from the other. There is a distinction between 'new' and 'original'. 'New' is referred to a case where the shape or pattern is wholly new in itself. 'Original' in relation to a design would refer to a case which could be old but new in its application to the particular subject matter. The word 'original' means that the person has originated something. The person has conceived an idea by exercising his intellectual faculty and thereby has produced a particular pattern or shape reduced in a tangible form applicable to a particular article to which he suggests that it shall be applied and only then a design can be said to be original. The design registered by the respondent is neither new or original as the same has already been disclosed to public and not significantly distinguishable from the known designs or combination of known designs and, accordingly, liable to be cancelled under Section 19(1)(c) of the Designs Act, 2000.

The private respondent opposed the said application. The respondent in its counter affidavit has contended that the impugned design is appealing to the eye and novel. The "Sunday Chair" design bearing No.242843, resonates strength and beauty with practicability and reliability in the chair and, accordingly, the design deserves to be protected under the Design Act 2000. The "Sunday Chair" cannot be compared to any ordinary easy chair. The respondent referred to definition of an "easy chair" by Merriam Webster's Dictionary to mean "roomy upholstered chair" and submitted that the common understanding of an easy chair would be a chair which has a soft padding, springs and webbing. The Sunday chair is a plastic chair with an ergonomic design with a high backrest and neck support. The chair designs cited by the petitioner have different configuration, shape and patterns of lines in comparison to that of the respondent's registered "Sunday chair" design. The operative top edge of the cited chair is convex whereas the "Sunday Chair" has adopted a contemporary style and the operative top edge of the chair is concave. The Sunday chair is unique and has a relaxed feel to it, assuring the consumer that he could be at ease when sitting on the Sunday chair. In order to enhance the aesthetics of the chair, the back of the chair from the top is bulging outwards and is followed by a series of five slits which create six pairs of ventilation slots in the chair with just one vertical reinforcing rib. The ventilation slots do not affect the smoothness of the chair's back and are solely present for enhancing the creative look of the chairs. The chair's handle has a riser as well a horizontal part, however, the inclination from the riser to the horizontal part of the handle is not too steep. The surface pattern of the Sunday Chair is novel and exclusive. The design in the Sunday Chair has been adopted after extensive research on the designs which may be appealing to the purchaser.
v) Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. vs. Controller of Patents and Designs reported at 2011 SCC Online Cal 1340.

The submission of the learned Senior Counsel in short is that the impugned design is a mere modification of existing design and it does not have any identifiable novel feature, therefore, it lacks novelty for registration of design. Moreover the shape or configuration of surface pattern of the impugned design is not new or original. The shape and configuration of the impugned design for "easy (relaxation) chair" is well-known in the plastic manufacturing industry and even the surface pattern of the present invention exist in the chair for the last 10 years. The impugned design is a general shape, configuration and surface pattern of any plastic chair including the easy chair, which does not possess any specific features of shape, configuration and pattern of the design. Moreover the private respondent is selling the chair having a different design than the registered one. Mr. Bachwat has also referred a pictorial comparison but the registered design of the respondent and the chair which the respondent has been selling. It is submitted that in view of such misrepresentations the design is liable to be cancelled. The controller however, has failed to exercise its jurisdiction in not cancelling the design the order of the Controller suffers from perversity and is required to be set aside.

23. The distinction between shape and configuration on the one hand, and pattern, on the other hand, arises in this case because Mr. Gupta has relied upon the manner in which the monopoly has been claimed in the design of the petitioner. In all the registrations the petitioner has claimed that the novelty resides in the shape and configuration of the designed article as illustrated. Surface pattern or ornamentation is not mentioned in the petitioner's claim. Mr. Gupta has emphasised that it is possible for a party to claim novelty only in a part of the design as illustrated. Mr. Gupta thus submitted that there is nothing in the shape or configuration of the illustrated fan of the petitioner or the illustrated fan parts relied upon by the petitioner which can be said to have been offended specially by the respondent's design. Mr. Gupta pointed out that in contrast, the respondent has claimed their novelty to reside in the surface pattern and ornamentation of the ceiling fan. Thus, it is important to resolve at this stage what is the effect of the claim of novelty as made by the petitioner in the registered designs.