AN OVERVIEW OF

THE DESIGNS ACT AND RULES

IN INDIA

Prepared by INTTL ADVOCARE Team ©

Mamta Rani Jha, Partner

Supported by:

Manish Kumar Mishra, Associate

1 
 
© INTTL ADVOCARE 2012

All rights reserved. This study material has been prepared as part of the
online IPR course conducted by Federation of Indian Chambers of
Commerce and Industry (FICCI) for academic purpose. The contents of
the said study material or parts thereof are not to be reproduced or
transmitted in any form or by any means whatsoever, including
photocopying and recording, without the written permission of the
copyright holder. Such written permission must also be obtained before
any part of this study material is stored in a retrieval system of any
nature.

The author has taken all care and effort to ensure that the legislative
provisions reproduced here are accurate and up to date. However, she
takes no responsibility for any inaccuracy or omission contained herein
or for advice, action or inaction based hereupon. Reference must be
made to the Official Gazette issued by the Government of India for the
authoritative text of any Act, Rule, Regulation, Notification or Order.

The views expressed in this study material are of the author. For further
queries and clarifications, the author may be contacted at
[email protected] or [email protected].

2 
 
 CONTENTS
 

I. OBJECT OF DESIGN REGISTRATION AND LEGISLATION IN INDIA.....4-6

II. WHAT IS A REGISTRABLE DESIGN ..............7-14

III WHAT IS NOT A DESIGN ............15-17

IV NOVELTY AND ORIGINALITY ...........18-24

V PRIOR PUBLICATION ..........25-29

VI REGISTRATION OF DESIGNS ...........30-41

VII CANCELLATION OF DESIGN REGISTRATION ...........42-44

[

VIII REGISTER OF DESIGNS & RECTIFICATION OF REGISTER ..........45-47

IX TRANSFER OF RIGHTS & LICENSE ..........48-49

X RIGHTS CONFERRED BY REGISTRATION ...........50-53

XI INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT IN A DESIGN & CIVIL REMEDIES..54-60
XII POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE CONTROLLER ...........61-62

   

3 
 
 CHAPTER I

OBJECT OF DESIGN REGISTRATION AND LEGISLATION IN INDIA

1.0 Object of registration of designs:

1.1 Object of The Designs Act is to protect new or original designs so created to
applied on a particular article which is capable of manufacture by industrial
process or means. The appearance of an article plays an important role for
creating a market for itself. The important purpose of design registration is to
ensure that the artisan, creator, originator of a design who has given the
article an aesthetic look is not deprived of his bonafide labour/skill and the
reward when others try to apply the same design on their article.

The protection given by the law relating to designs to those who produce new
and original design is primarily to advance industries, and keep them at a
high level of competitive progress.

1.2 Legislation in India:

The first legislation in India for protection of Industrial Designs was The
Patents and Designs Protection Act, 1872. The Inventions and Designs Act of
1988 re-enacted the law relating to protection of Inventions and Designs and
contained provision relating to Designs in a separate part. In 1911 The
Designs Act was passed by then British Government in India. Since then,
extensive amendments have been made in The Designs Act. To provide more
effective protection to registered designs and to promote design activity in
order to promote design element in an article of production it became
necessary to make the legal system of providing protection to Industrial
Designs more efficient. To achieve such objective, The Designs Act, 1911 was
repealed and The Designs Act 2000 was enacted to make the Designs Law in
India TRIPS compliant.

4 
 
 Latest Amendments:

The law relating to Designs at present is governed by The Designs Act, 2000
which came into force alongwith the Designs Rules, 2001 on 11.05.2001. The
Designs Rules, 2001 has been further amended on 17.06.2008 to keep it at pace
with the rapid changes in technology and international developments and is
also to include more detailed classification of design to conform to the
international system. The Designs Act, 2000 is hereinafter referred to as ‘the
Act’

It is relevant to note the introduction, statement of objects and reasons of the

Act for better understanding of the scope of protection under The Designs
Act, 2000.

The Hon’ble Division Bench of Bombay High Court discussed the objects and
reasons of The Designs Act, 2000 .1

“In 1911 the Designs Act was passed by the then British Government
in India, since then extensive amendments have been made in the
Designs Act. In the meanwhile India has made tremendous progress in
the field of science and technology. There has been considerable
increase in the registration of designs. To provide more effective
protection to registered designs and to promote design activity in order
to promote design element in an article of production it has become
necessary to make the legal system of providing protection to industrial
designs more efficient.

STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS:

The proposed Design Bill is essentially aimed to balance these

interests. It is also intended to ensure that the law does not
unnecessarily extend protection beyond what is necessary to create the
required incentive for design activity while removing impediments to
the free use of available designs. To achieve these purposes, the Bill
incorporates inter alia, the following, namely:

a) it enlarges the scope of definition of "article" and "design" and

introduces definition of "original"

                                                            
1
   AIR 2008 BOM 111 

5 
 
 14. The notes on clauses as published on 13th December, 1999 in
reference to a Bill to consolidate and amend the law relating to
protection of designs, as relevant, is reproduced below:

Clause 2.- This clause contains definitions of various expressions used

in the Bill. While most of the definitions in the existing Act have been
retained, the definition of "original" has been incorporated vide Clause
(o). According to this definition, "original", in relation to a design,
means originating from the author of such design and includes the
cases which though old in themselves yet are new in their application.
The definition of "original" has been incorporated in order to specify
the registrable designs. The definitions of "article" and "design" have
been amplified to align them with similar definitions internationally
accepted for providing wider protection to the intellectual property.
The definition of "article" has been amplified for inclusion of parts of
articles sold separately within its scope. The definition of "design" has
been amplified to incorporate therein the composition of lines and
colours so as to avoid overlapping with The Copyright Act, 1957
regarding definition of "design" in respect of artistic work.”

The Hon’ble Court duly recorded that the phrase as inserted in the Act, now
even covers “any part of an article capable of being made and sold
separately” and hence the Act has widened the scope of protection and hence
restrictive interpretation will be against the scheme and object of the Act.”

****

6 
 
 CHAPTER II

WHAT IS A REGISTRABLE DESIGN

2.0 In order to be protectable, it is necessary for a Design to fulfil the following

requirements:

(i) It is covered under the definition of Design;

(ii) It is not a prohibited design as per Section-4 of the Act.

2.1 Definition of Design:

Section 2 (d) of The Designs Act, 2000 defines designs as under:

d) "design" means only the features of shape, configuration, pattern,

ornament or composition of lines of colours applied to any article whether in
two dimensional or three dimensional or in both forms, by any industrial
process or means, whether manual, mechanical or chemical, separate or
combined, which in the finished article appeal to and are judged solely by the
eye; but does not include any mode or principle of construction or anything
which is in substance a mere mechanical device, and does not include any
trade mark as defined in Clause (v) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Trade
and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (43 of 1958) or property mark as defined in
Section 479 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or any artistic work as
defined in clause) of Section 2 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (14 of 1957);

From the above definition a design must have the following essential
ingredients:

(a) Feature - of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or composition of

lines or colours;

(b) Applied to any article;

(c) The article may be in two dimensional or three dimensional form;

(d) Feature applied to an article by any industrial process or means, whether

manual, mechanical or chemical separate or combined;

7 
 
 (e) Finished article which has appeal to the eye;

(f) It does not relate to feature which are dictated by function i.e. mere mode
or principle of construction or anything which is in substance a mere
mechanical device;

(g) Does not include a ‘trade mark’ or a ‘property mark’ or any ‘artistic work’
as defined under The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, Indian
Penal Code 1860 and The Copyright Act 1957 respectively.

The essence of design protection is the protection of the appearance of an

article. The protection of appearance depends on feature applied to an article
such as shape, surface pattern, ornamentation, configuration, texture etc. The
feature applied to an article imparts an aesthetic eye appeal enhancing the
value and marketability of the product/article making it a registrable design.
If the feature is merely functional in nature the same would be incapable of
any design protection.2

2.2 A design may be three dimensional or two dimensional.

Three dimensional - shape and configuration e.g. shape of a bottle, Kettle,

chair etc.

Two dimensional - a pattern or ornament e.g. pattern on fabric, wallpaper etc.

A piece of paper on which a pattern is drawn cannot be a subject matter for

registration of design. Label put on a carton to be used as container for the
goods can never amount to design within the meaning of Section 2(3) of The
Designs Act, 1911.3

The paper used for printing or canvas used for painting have no function
other than to carry the printing or painting. Therefore, they are unregistrable.

                                                            
2
   1999 PTC 775 (para 16, 17) 
3
    AIR 1992 BOM 195  

8 
 
 In Re Littlewoods Pools Ltd’s Application (1949) 66 RPC 309 - application
was made to register a form of football coupon consisting of a rectangular
sheet of paper on which a pattern was formed by straight lines, the spaces
between were filled with literary matter. Wynn-Parry J in holding that the
paper was not an article stated that as the function of the paper was “solely to
carry the imprint of the design” and did not have any other function it was
not an “article”, within the meaning of the Act.

It would appear to follow that paper or canvass could be considered an

article. However, to be registrable an article must have some function other
than that of merely carrying the design. A drawing or painting on ordinary
paper or canvas are not the same as wallpaper or wrapping paper or textiles.

The wallpaper, wrapping paper or textiles all perform a function other than
just being a vehicle for the design. For example the wallpaper is used for
sticking on the wall to either enhance the decor of a room or for the more
practical purpose of covering cracks or faults in the wall surface. Textile
material is used for making up a variety of articles e.g. curtains, clothing, bed
linen etc. This factor makes these registrable articles.

2.4 Definition of an article:

Section 2(a) OF The Designs Act, 2000 defines article as under:

(a) “article” means any article of manufacture and any substance, artificial or
partly artificial and partly natural; and includes any part of an article
capable of being made and sold separately.

Rule 2(e) of The Designs, Rule 2001 defines a set of articles.

“(e) “Set” means a number of articles of the same general character ordinarily sold
together or intended to be used together, all bearing the same design, with or
without modification not sufficient to alter the character or substantially to
affect the identity thereof.”

9 
 
 The phrase “capable of being made and sold separately” was not in The
Designs Act, 1911. This phrase was added in The Designs Act, 2000 to enlarge
the definition of article and design.

In Marico Ltd. v/s Raj Oil Mills4 The Hon’ble Court observed as under:

17. The definition of "article" under the Act as reproduced above read with the
definition of "design" are different from the provision of the English statute as
reproduced above and importantly, the following words "includes any part of
an article capable of being made and sold separately", whereas, in the English
statute the words are "if that part is to be made and sold separately".
Therefore, the words "capable of being made and sold separately" has to be
read and considered in the context of the Act. The English Law is silent with
regard to the above words of the Act. The repealed Act 1911 defines "article"
means any article of manufacture and any substance artificial or natural or
partly artificial or partly natural. The above words "capable of being made and
sold separately" were not there earlier. Therefore, as noted in the objects and
reasons and as intended to enlarge the definition of "article" and "design"
above words have been inserted. These words are clear and unambiguous.

29. The phrase as inserted in the Act, now even covers "any part of an article
capable of being made and sold separately". Apart from any article of
manufacture, therefore, we have no doubt that the words inserted in the Act
have a wide meaning and are not to be restricted to exclude an article and or
even the part of an article which is "capable of being made and sold
separately", as contended and as held by the learned Judge. There is no
question of giving the restricted meaning to exclude finished design article like
cap in question which admittedly and factually were and are made separately.
These caps are capable of being sold separately.”

Further, while deciding the meaning of Article what is to be seen is the actual
intention at the time of the design registration. The article in question, a face
of an electric meter, was found not to be registrable, and Graham J observed

“....I find the matter difficult to decide, but on the whole I think the intention
must be to grant registration only for such articles as are intended by the
proprietor of the design to be put on the market and sold separately, such as for
example a hammer.....” 5

Therefore, as per the definition in the Act an article must have two ingredients
to be eligible for design registration:
                                                            
4
   AIR 2008 BOM 111 
5
  1973 RPC 899 

10 
 
 - it must be “an article of manufacture” and

- it must be “capable of being made and sold separately”.

Thus, an article must have a purpose other than merely carrying the design
meaning thereby the article must be capable of being sold even if it does not
carry the design applied to it. An article of manufacture or a substance had to
have some purpose other than that of merely carrying the ornament.6

2.5 Applied to an article:

Design is always applied to an “article”. Design is therefore article specific.

An application for a design registration shall be made in a prescribed Form-1

which clearly says that provide the name of the article on which the design is
sought to be applied.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharat Glass case7 held that the design of the
Roller though being prior registered and prior published will not invalidate
the design registration in India which was applied on the glass sheet. The
court held as under:

“Therefore, the concept of design is that a particular figure conceived by its

designer in his mind and it is reproduced in some identifiable manner and it is
sought to be applied to an article. Therefore, whenever registration is required
then those configurations have to be chosen for registration to be reproduced in
any article. The idea is that the design has to be registered which is sought to
be reproduced on any article. Therefore, both the things are required to go
together, i.e. the design and the design which is to be applied to an article. In
the present case, the design has been reproduced in the article like glass which
is registered. This could have been registered with rexin or leather. Therefore,
for registration of a particular configuration or particular shape of thing which
is sought to be reproduced on a particular article has to be applied. As in the
present case the design sought to be reproduced on a glass-sheet has been
registered and there is no evidence to show that this design was registered
earlier to be reproduced on glass in India or any other part of the country or in
Germany or even for that matter in United Kingdom, therefore, it is for the

                                                            
6
  (1949) 66 RPC 309 
7
  2008 (37) PTC 1 

11 
 
 first time registered in India which is new and original design which is to be
reproduced on glass sheet.

Thus, a known design if applied to a new article can impart originality and
would be considered as registrable design.

Where the design of a metal band called the "Novelty band," intended to
attach a watch to the wrist, was similar in shape and configuration to a
bracelet previously manufactured for ornamental purpose, it was held that
though the shape of the "Novelty" band by itself could not be said to be new
and original, the application of it to a watch to be worn on the wrist was
considered as original design.8

2.6 Eye Appeal to an article:

The definition of the design has a categorical reference that the feature in
terms of shape, configuration or pattern on the finished article must appeal to
and are judged solely by the eye. Thus, the feature applied to an article
should be appealing to the eye.

Hence all the features are not registrable designs only those features which
are appealing to the eyes are registrable designs. “Eye appeal” is a technical
phrase which must be distinguished from the more general “visual appeal”.
“Features which in the finished articles appear to and are judged solely by
eye”.

“LORD PEARSON said:”The phrase is naturally to be read as importing

some limitation on the expression ‘features of shape, configuration, pattern or
ornament’. Not all such features constitute a design. It is not reasonable to
suppose that the only limitation is that the features are visible in the finished
article. If that had been the intention, it could have been expressed much more
simply. The emphasis is on external appearance, but not every external
appearance of any article, constitutes a design. There must be in some way a

                                                            
8
  AIR 1919 CAL 887 

12 
 
 special, peculiar, distinctive, significant or striking appearance – something
which catches the eye and in this sense appeals to the eye.”9

2.7 Eye Appeal of a prospective purchaser:

In determining whether the features in question had eye appeal, the Court
adopted the mantle of the prospective purchaser of the article to which the
design had been applied. The design was not viewed through the eyes of an
expert in the field.10

The question of eye appeal came up for consideration in Interlego A.G. v. Tyco
Industries Inc. [1988] 16 R.P.C. 343. In that their Lordships have laid down
important test in the matter of visual appeal of the eye. It was observed as
follows:

“In relation, however, to an assessment of whether a particular shape or

configuration satisfies the former and positive part of the definition, the fact
that an important part of the very purpose of the finished article is to appeal to
the eye cannot be ignored. That factor was one which was conspicuously
absent from the articles upon which the courts were required to adjudicate in
the cases of Tecalemit Ltd. v. Ewarts Ltd. (1927) 44 R.P.C. 503, Stenor and
Amp and in the more recent Irish case of Allibert S.A. v. O'Connor [1981]
F.S.R. 613, in all of which the claim to registration failed. It was one which
was present in the case of Kestos where the claim to the validity of the design
succeeded. It is present in the instant case. One starts with the expectation of
eye-appeal, for part of the very purpose of the article is to have eye-appeal.
That was aptly expressed by Whitford J. in relation to the same subject-matter
as in this appeal in the case of Interlego A.G. v. Alex Folley (Vic) Pty.Ltd.
[1987]F.S.R. 283 at page 298:

“I would have expected a designer designing toys to have the question of the
appeal of the toy to the eye, even in the case of a functional toy, in mind. Mr.
Rylands who have evidence for the defendants said that when designing a
functional toy it is necessary to have regard not only to suitability for purpose
but to overall appearance. You have to design so that the article in question
will make an immediate visual appeal to a child or to the parent or other
person buying for a child.”

                                                            
9
   Amp. V Utilux (1972) RPC 103  
10
   1995 RPC 205 

13 
 
2.8 Design with no eye appeal is not a registrable design:

A drawing indicating a method of construction and can only be understood

and visualised by an eye trained in the mechanical matters cannot be a
registrable design. The drawings which are not perceivable by the eye of an
ordinary person and which can only be perceived by an Engineer or a
mechanician are not registrable designs.11

****

                                                            
11
   1912 RPC (29) 196 

14 
 
 CHAPTER III

WHAT IS NOT A DESIGN

3.0 FUNCTIONAL FEATURE:

“Good design involves two fundamental elements: the product must perform
its function and it should be pleasant to look at. In the case of some products,
such as pictures and ornaments, their very function is to please the eye. In the
case of other products, such as the internal working parts of a machine, the
visual appearance is irrelevant. That is why the Community design
legislation denies protection to component parts that are not visible in normal
use. In the case of most products the designer will be concerned with both the
functional and the aesthetic elements. That applies also to large items of
industrial equipment, such as shredders for use in recycling plants. The
shredder must, in the first place, perform its function effectively and safely
and without creating excessive noise, but it is also desirable that the shredder
should be pleasing to the eye and thus enhance the working environment of the
people who operate it and see it in use. For that reason there is no objection in
principle to granting design protection to industrial products whose overall
appearance is determined largely, but not exclusively, by functional
considerations.”12

Many articles have a number of designs with functional and non-functional

features. Where a design includes features dictated by function to be
performed by the relevant article, there are three possibilities as per Lord
Oliver in Interlego AG v Tyco Industries Inc.13 He suggested that where a design
includes features dictated by the function to be performed by the relevant
article, there are three possibilities:

• The registrable elements are limited to those parts having eye appeal;

• The design is excluded from registration altogether because of the

presence of functional features or;

• The design excluded only if every feature is dictated by function.

                                                            
12
   18 [2010] FSR 39 
13
   (1989) AC 217 

15 
 
 Therefore, a design which is purely functional and has no appeal to the eye
cannot be protected as a design under the Act. However, the difficulty arises
in the cases where the design is partly functional and partly appealing to the
eye. House of Lords while dealing with the issue that a single electrical
terminal for using washing machine having a different shape is registrable
design or not observed and held as under:14

“In Cow (P.B.) & Co. v Cannon Rubber Manufacturers Ltd. (1959) RPC 347
the question arose whether the provision of diagonal ribbing for the faces of a
hot water bottle was dictated solely by the function which the hot water bottle
had to perform. Lloyd-Jacob J. held on the evidence that heat radiation without
discomfort or risk owed nothing to the direction in which the ribbing was
disposed: so there was a difference between the provision of ribbing of some
kind and the choice of a diagonal direction. His decision was upheld in the
Court of Appeal where Lord Evershed M.R. referred to the diagonal ribbing as
a “distinctive feature” which seemed to him “to appeal strikingly to the eye”.
He said that it had not been established that the feature was “dictated solely
by-that is to say, one adopted upon the sole requirement of functional ends.”
Though with some hesitation he said (at page 352)- I am not satisfied that this
was a “purely functional idea.”

In the features of shape of the terminals in the present case there was neither
the purpose nor the result of making an appeal to the eye: the features of shape
were adopted only because of functional requirements: they were dictated
solely by the function which terminals to be made in that shape would have to
perform.”

A design consisting of S shaped zigzag folds angular neck and a curved

handle of a toothbrush was held to be a functional feature and non-registrable
as design. The Court was of the view that the zigzag S folds was utilitarian
and functional which enhances flexibility in the toothbrush. The rubber
cushioning and introduction of certain patches on the toothbrush will not
make the toothbrush eligible for design registration when all the features are
primarily functional in nature.15

                                                            
14
   1972 RPC 103 at 115 
15
  1999 PTC 775  

16 
 
 Therefore, principally design protection can be granted to industrial products
whose overall appearance is determined largely but not exclusively, by
functional considerations.

3.1 Trade Marks & Property Marks:

As per the definition of the design, trade marks or property marks as defined
in The Trade Marks Act or Indian Penal Code are explicitly excluded to be
considered as designs under this Act.

3.2 Artistic work:

The artistic work as defined under The Copyright Act in Section 2(c) is also
explicitly excluded to be considered as designs under this Act.

3.3 Prohibition of registration of certain designs:

Section 4 of The Designs Act, 2000 envisages what designs are not registrable
or what are prohibited for design registration. Section 4 is reproduced
hereinbelow:

Section 4: Prohibition of registration of certain designs.- A design which-

(a) is not new or original; or

(b) has been disclosed to the public anywhere in India or in any other country
by publication in tangible form or by use or in any other way prior to the
filing date, or where applicable, the priority date of the application for
registration; or

(c) is not significantly distinguishable from known designs or combination of

known designs; or

(d) comprises or contains scandalous or obscene matter, shall not be

registered.

Thus, design protection cannot be granted if the design is:

• not new or original;

• prior published either in India or internationally prior to the date of

filing of design application;

17 
 
 • mere trade variant and not significantly distinguishable from known
designs or combination of known design;

• of scandalous or obscene matter.

****

18 
 
 CHAPTER IV

NOVELTY AND ORIGINALITY

4.0 A design which is not new or original is not registrable:

Section 2(g) defines original as under:

“original”, in relation to a design, means originating from the author of such

design and includes the cases which though old in themselves yet are new in
their application;

Therefore, original in relation to design means two things:

• Originating from the author;

• Old design but the application of the same is new;

Therefore, the design to be original, it must originate from the author and
must be new i.e. never existed before or though existed before the
application of the design is new. Thus, the originality and novelty are the
two requirements for a design to be registrable.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court interpreted as to the expression, “new or

original” appearing in Section 4 means that the design which has been
registered has not been published anywhere or it has been made known to
the public. The expression, “new or original” means that it had been
invented for the first time or it has not been reproduced by anyone.16

4.1 Distinction between “new” and “original”:

In Clarke v. Julius Sax and Co.17 Lord Justice Lindley while examining the issue
of a design for the shape of a lamp for electric lighting observed the
distinction between novelty and originality and held that gas and oil lamps
are old designs and electric lighting being new, every lamp or lamp shade
adapted to it for the first time cannot be said to be new or original just
                                                            
16
   2008 (37) PTC 1 
17
   1986 RPC (13) 351 at 358 

19 
 
 because the application is new. There must be some novelty or originality in
the shape as applied to the lamp.

It is not easy to determine what distinction, if any, is intended to be drawn

between novelty and originality; but if there is any difference, the design
need not be both new and original. The Act applies to designs which are
new or original, provided they have not been previously published in the
United Kingdom.

Reliance was placed on various judgments:

In considering the novelty or originality of a design, it must always be borne

in mind that the applicability of the design to manufactured articles is the
matter which has to be determined. This was pointed out in Saunders v. Wiel,
1893, 1 Queen’s Bench 171, 10 RPC, 29 (the “Abbey spoon handle” case).

If a design had never been applied to articles comprised in one of the classes
of goods into which manufactured articles are divided for the purposes of the
Act, such design might be protected for that class, even if it had been
previously applied to goods of a different class. But it has been decided that
if a design is really old in its application to some manufactured article, its
application to a new substance will not necessarily entitle it to protection,
although such substance may not fall within the class to which the first article
belongs.

In Re Bach’s Design, 42 Ch. D. 661, 6 RPC 376, a lamp shade in the shape of a
rose, but made in linen, was registered for goods in Class 12; it was held that a
lamp shade of the same shape, but made in china, which had been registered
for goods in Class 14, was not entitled to protection, and it was removed from
the Register accordingly. Although the substances were dissimilar, the shape
was the same, and the articles having that shape were both lamp shades – that
is, they were both of the same kind and used for the same purpose.

Again, in Read and Gresswell’s Design, 42 Ch. D 260, 6 RPC 471, a lamp shade
made of paper, shaped like a chrysanthemum, was registered in Class 5; and a

20 
 
 similar design for a lamp shade of the same shape was expunged from the
Register, although it was registered for goods in Class 12, and was made of
linen and paper.

In this last case, Mr. Justice Chitty said that “to be capable of being registered,
a design must be new or original in fact, and not, as suggested, new or
original as to some particular class of goods. It cannot be said to be new or
original if it is already being applied to articles of an analogous “character”.
The learned Judge was obviously referring to the classes of goods mentioned
in the schedule to the Designs Rules; and the words referring to articles of an
analogous nature show that the learned Judge did not intend by the words
“new or original in fact” to decide that a design must be new or original in the
sense of never having been seen before as applied to any article whatever.

In Walker, Hunter, and Co. v. Falkirk Iron Company, 4 Patent Cases 390, and the
Hecla Foundry Company v. Falkrik Iron Company, L.R. 14 Appeal Cases 550,
6 RPC 554, a design for the shape of an iron furnace door was protected
although wooden doors of the same shape for sideboards and other articles of
furniture were old. The things shaped were for such different purposes, and
their uses were so dissimilar, that the design for one of such things was held
to be new or original, although it was old for the other.

4.2 Different use of article immaterial for design:

In Stenor v Whitesides (1948) 65 RPC 1 at p.7 (HL) similar issue arose for
consideration and it was held that the claim of a design to novelty or
originality may fail in either of two ways: (i) because there is another article in
the same class to which the shape had been already applied, or (ii) because
the shape has already been applied to another article of an analogous
character even though it is included in a different class. In both cases, the
earlier application must have been published in the United Kingdom. When
the two articles to be compared as embodying the same design are in the
same class, a difference of purpose or use appears to be immaterial. If

21 
 
 monopoly exists, it is monopoly in respect of features of shape and the like of
which appeal to and are judged solely by the eye, and this excludes the idea
that monopoly is established by considering, within the same class, how far
the use of one article differs from the use of another article with the same
features of shape.

The design registered for fuses intended for use with Vulcanising machines
was held anticipated by the prior use of the same design for bicycle crank
axles and mill rollers which were in the same class as fuses.

In the matter of M/s Brighto AutoIndustries Vs Shri Raj Chawla (ILR 1978 (I)
Delhi) the Hon’ble Court interpreted “New” as under:

‘new’ is taken generally to mean as different to what has gone before and
original as something originating from the author. In the matter of novelty
the eye has to be the ultimate arbiter and the determination has to rest on the
general ocular impression. To secure recognition for its newness or
originality it is imperative that a design identical with or even materially
similar to the relevant design should not have been published or registered
previously. A slight trivial or infinitesimal variation from a pre-existing
design will not qualify it for registration taking into account the nature
involved the change introduced should be substantial. It is not necessary to
justify registration that the whole of the design should be new, the newness
may be confined to only a part of it but that part must be a significant one and
it should be potent enough to impart to the whole design a distinct identity,
unless the registration sought for the said part alone”.18

4.3 Trade variants not protectable design:

A trade variant is, some embellishment (useful or otherwise) which is known,

and sometimes, though not always, used in connection with a particular class
of article or class of work.

Mere novelty of form or shape is insufficient. Novelty involves the presence

of some element or new position of an old element in combination, different
from anything found in any prior structure. Addition of a curve here or there
                                                            
18
   ILR 1978 (I) Delhi 

22 
 
 in a shape which is well recognised shape of an article of common use in the
market cannot make it an article new or original in design.19

In the matter of Phillips V Harbro Rubber Co. (1919) 36 RPC 79 at P 85(CA)

clearly indicates that it is not open to a manufacturer to bring one or more
important leading features of different articles already present in a market
and by registering a design incorporating merely a combination without any
mental activity by application of mind for its production and acquire
registration of design. The manufacturers who are already manufacturing
those products shall be under pressure of carrying out the business for
unduly registration made and be a subject of monopoly. It would be an
oppressive if any mere change in the outline or pattern of such an article
would justify the registration of design. It will not only hamper the business
activity at large but also preclude others for making such article.20

In Western Engineering Co. ~Vs.~ M/s America Lock Co.21 it was held in this case
that generally the test for novelty and originality was dependent on
determining the type of mental activity involved in conceiving the design in
question. If the design was original, then the designer must have conceived
something new; if the design was a mere trade variation of a previous design,
then the designer could be said to have merely kept an existing design in view
and made some changes in that. It was further held that in order to determine
whether a design was new or original there must be substantial differences
from the designs which were known or had been published prior to the date
of registration, and that what such a substantial difference was, was a
question upon which no general principle could be laid down at all and it
must depend upon the particular fact in each case and further that in one case
a quite small variation in the details of a design might be enough to make the
design something quite different from an existing design. On the other hand,
it was observed, there were cases even where quite large alterations in detail
                                                            
19
   2004 (28) PTC 1 
20
   (1919) 36 RPC 79 at P 85(CA) 
21
   ILR 1973 II Del 177 

23 
 
 leave two designs for all practical purposes of the same and that the Court has
to consider and look at the designs in question with an instructed eye and say
whether there was or was not such a difference between that which has been
published previously and the registered design as to entitle the proprietor of
the registered design to say that at the date of registration there was a new or
original design and therefore properly registered. The Court held that the
design of cycle lock of Western Engineering Company was not new and
original.

In Wingate’s Registered Design Case (1935 (52) RPC 126) the court while
analysing trade variation observed as under:

“......what a substantial difference” is, is a question upon which no general

principle can be laid down at all. It must depend on the particular fact in each
case. In one case a quite small variation in the details of a design may be
enough to make the design something quite different from an existing design.
On the other hand, there are cases even where quite large alterations in detail
leave two designs for all practical purpose the same. The Court has to consider
and look at the designs in question with an instructed eye and say whether
there is or is not such a substantial difference between that which had been
published previously and the registered design as to entitle the proprietor of
the registered design to say that at the date of registration that was a new or
original design and therefore properly registered.”

In Allen West & Co. Ld. V. British Westing house Electric and Manufacturing
Company Ld. (1916(33) RPC 157) it was observed that there must be, not a
mere novelty of outline, but a substantial novelty in the design having regard
to the nature of the article.

Tiles with sharp edges and corners with mottling design on the top and side
walls were already in vogue and a tile with round corners may look a little
different but will not constitute a new or a different design and will be a
variation of existing design.22

****
                                                            
22
   1986 PTC 50 

24 
 
 CHAPTER V

PUBLICATION

5.0 Publication is not defined in the Act. A design to be registrable under the Act
must not be disclosed to the public anywhere in India or in any other country
by publication in tangible form or by use or in any other way prior to the
filing date or priority date of the application for design registration.
Therefore, the Act prohibits registration of a design which is prior published
in India or in any other country. Therefore publication must be:

(i) in tangible form i.e. which can be perceived by eyes;

(ii) by way of prior document;

(ii) by way of prior use.

Therefore, to constitute prior disclosure by publication and to destroy the

novelty of the registered design, the publication has to be in tangible form of
the design applied to the same article. If the prior publication of design
applied on different articles the same may not constitute prior publication.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the visual effect and/or appeal of a
pattern embossed into glass-sheets by use of embossing rollers could be
different from the visual effect of the same pattern etched into glass-sheets
manually.23

Prior publication of a trade catalogue, brochure, book, journal, magazine or

newspaper containing photographs or explicit picture illustrations that clearly
depict the application of the design on the same article with the same visual
effect would be sufficient.

Publication has been interpreted by various international judicial

pronouncements as well as by Indian Courts. In the matter of Rotela Auto

                                                            
23
   2006 (33) PTC 434 

25 
 
 Components (P) Ltd. v. Jaspal Singh.24 It was held that the word ‘published’
used in Section 19 or under Section 4 of the Designs Act has not been defined
under the Designs Act, 2000. It is published if a design is no longer a secret.
There is publication if the design has been disclosed to the public or public
has been put in possession of the design. Russel-Clarke in Copyright in
Industrial Design, 4th Edition, pages 41-42 says that:

“...It is sufficient, and there will be publication if the knowledge was either-

(1) Available to members of the public; or

(2) Actually in fact shown and disclosed to some individual member of the public
who was under no obligation to keep it secret.”

It is not necessary design should have been actually used. It will constitute
publication, if it is shown that it was known to the public without ever having
been actually put into use.

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. V. Gopal Glass
Works Ltd.25 held that the expression “new or original” in Section 4 means
that the design which has been registered has not been published anywhere
or it has been made known to the public. While examining the issue of prior
publication it held that what was published was the design on the roller
which could have been used for bringing a particular design on the glass,
rexin or leather. Thus, the court was of the view that unless design applied to
specific article which has been prior published the same may not constitute
prior publication. The court further observed that no evidence whatsoever
was produced before the Court that the design which was applied for by the
applicant which has been reproduced on the glass-sheet was manufactured
anywhere in the market in India or in United Kingdom. The only evidence
produced was a letter from the German company showing that the roller was
designed in 1992 and was marketed in 1993. There was no evidence to show
                                                            
24
   2002 (24) PTC 449 (Del) 
25
   2008 (37) PTC 1 

26 
 
 that the design was reproduced on glass-sheet anywhere in Germany. The
design which was registered in the name of Gopal Glass Works was not
published in India or in Germany. Therefore, it was a new and original
design. The website download from the United Kingdom Patent Office also
did not disclose that the published design was applied to glass-sheet. It is
only a design downloaded from the website of Patent Office in UK and it is
not known whether it was reproduced on glass-sheet in UK or not.

Thus, prior publication of a design by prior use can be said to take place when
the design has been applied to articles, and those articles have been used in
such a way that the design becomes disclosed to the public before the date of
application for registration of the design.26

In M/s Domestic Appliances 27 it was held that respondents were

manufacturing the Gas Tandoors prior to the date of design registration and
hence it was held that the design has been prior published.

In Wimco Ltd. V. M/s Meena Match Industries28 after review of evidence on

record it was held that the design given to M/s Wimco was likely to be
cancelled on the ground that it has been published in India prior to date of
registration and the design was not a new or original one.

5.1 Confidential communication does not amount to publication:

The disclosure of the design in confidence does not amount to publication.

The Act duly protects disclosure in confidence. Section 16 of the Act is
reproduced hereinbelow:

“Section 16. Effect of disclosure on copyright. - The disclosure of a design by

the proprietor to any other person, in such circumstances as would make it
contrary to good faith for that other person to use or publish the design, and
the disclosure of a design in breach of faith by any person, other than the

                                                            
26
  Russell‐Clarke and Howe on Industrial Designs 8th Edition 3‐100 
27
   1981 PTC 239 
28
   1983 PTC 373 

27 
 
 proprietor of the design, and the acceptance of a first and confidential order for
articles bearing a new or original textile design intended for registration, shall
not be deemed to be a publication of the design sufficient to invalidate the
copyright thereof if registration thereof is obtained subsequently to the
disclosure or acceptance.”

Thus, where the design has been disclosed to a person in confidence the same
would not constitute prior publication of the design and such publication will
not be sufficient to invalidate the copyright in the registered design in
following cases:

i. where the proprietor of the design has disclosed the design to any
other person, in good faith;

ii. where the disclosure of the design has been made in breach of good
faith by any person other than the proprietor of the design; and

iii. the acceptance of a first and confidential order for goods bearing a new
or original textile design intended for registration.

Thus, the confidential communication does not amount to publication. If the

design is disclosed to a person who has interest in the design or to an expert
in the field to ascertain his views on the design, such disclosure is
confidential.

In Kemp & Co. V. Prima Plastics Ltd. 29 it was held that the expression
disclosure used in Section 49 (under 1911 Act) when seen in the light of the
facts it would be noticed that the plaintiff has sold the chairs of design i.e.
baby chair with human face prior to its registration as a commercial
proposition. Such commercial sale will not be covered under Section 49 of the
Act. Hence, it would amount to prior publication of design in question.

                                                            
29
   2000 PTC 96 

28 
 
 Publication of a design, if disclosed to any individual member of the public
who is not under an obligation to keep it secret, would constitute publication
of the design.30

5.2 Exhibition of design does not amount to publication in certain cases:

[Section-21]

The exhibition of a design or an article in certain circumstances prior to the

date of application for registration of the design will not invalidate a design if:

(a) exhibition of a design or any article to which the design has been applied,
at an industrial or other exhibition which has been duly notified in official
Gazette by Central Government;

(b) publication of a description of the design during or after the period of the
holding of the exhibition;

(c) the exhibition of the design or the article or the publication of a description
of the design by any person elsewhere during or after the period of the
holding of the exhibition without the privity or consent of the proprietor.

Provided:

(a) the exhibitor exhibiting the design or article or publishing a description of

the design gives to the Controller previous notice in the prescribed Form 9
of Rules 2001 and

(b) the application for registration is made within six months from the date of
first exhibiting the design or article or publishing a description of the
design.

****

                                                            
30
   AIR 1994 (Del) 309 

29 
 
 CHAPTER VI

REGISTRATION OF DESIGNS

6.0 Who can be the applicant [Section-5(1)]:

As per Section 5(1) any person claiming to be the proprietor of any new or
original design may apply for registration.

A proprietor may be from India or from a convention country [Section 44].

6.1 Proprietor of a new or original design [Section-2(i)]

Proprietor of a new or original design is defined under Section 2(j)

A proprietor may be:

i. an author of design;

ii. a person for whom the design is executed after receiving the
consideration;

iii. a person who has acquired the design;

iv. a person on whom the design has devolved from the original
proprietor.

In A. Pressler & Co. v. Gartside & Co.31 registration was obtained in respect of
printed or woven designs on textile piece goods and an action of infringement
was filed. The plaintiff claimed to be the registered proprietor of the design
and hence entitled for an action of infringement against imitation of similar
design by defendant. The defence put forward was that the registration of the
design is invalid on the ground that at the date of its registration it was not
new or original having been previously published, and the author of the
design was not a person in the employment of the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs
did not acquire the design so as to be entitled to apply for registration as
proprietors within the meaning of Section 93 of The Patents and Designs Acts,

                                                            
31
  RPC (L) No.7 240 

30 
 
 1907 -1919. Mr. Bailey, who was the managing director of the plaintiff
company, made an ink sketch of a design that he wished to have worked out
and applied to woven goods. He stated that the instructions he gave to the
weaver who was to produce the cloth in accordance with the design were (a)
that the cloth should be of a certain quality and (b) as per previous order,
No.1780 which his firm had already given to the weaver. Having got the
design with no further instructions, the weaver produced some cloth and
submitted it to Mr. Bailey and he was satisfied with it.

The question, therefore, was that whether Mr. Bailey was in those
circumstances the author of the design? The weaver was not given any
particular instructions with regard to any particular way in which the sketch
was to be worked out. In these circumstances, it was held that Mr. Bailey was
the author of the design. The design as registered was something which was
evolved by the weaver of the cloth and not by Mr. Bailey at all. The question
whether Mr. Bailey approved of it or not when it was made, did not make
him the author of the design. If it was not Mr. Bailey’s, then neither Mr.
Bailey nor the Company of which he is managing director was the author
entitled to be registered as the proprietor of the design.

Justice Farwell while deciding the validity of Vredenburg’s registered design

held that if there are two persons each of whom has produced a similar
design and each has communicated the fact of such authorship to the other,
neither of them alone is the proprietor of a new or original design, and neither
of them can validly register it.32

6.2 Where to apply:

A design application for registration can be filed in the Patent Office and shall
be addressed to the Controller of Designs. There is a prescribed form for
filing design application namely Form-1 alongwith the prescribed fee.
[Section 5(2) Form-1] The following details required to be fill-in:

                                                            
32
  (1935) 52 RPC 7 

31 
 
 • Full Name and Address of the Applicant

• Name of the Article;

• The Class to which the Article belongs as per the III Schedule under
The Designs Rules, 2001;

• Address for service in India;

• Application shall be signed either by the applicant or by his authorised

agent/legal representative, which means a legal practitioner or a
patent agent in India;

• Four copies of representation of the design shall be filed alongwith the

application;

6.3 Representation sheet33 [Section-5, Rule-11, 12 & 14]:

• Representation means the exact representation of the article for which

registration is sought;

• The representation shall be exact drawings, photographs, tracing,

including computer graphics or specimen of designs. Controller may
require a specimen of the article to be submitted at the time of
examination in a particular case;

• Photographs of an article from different view should be pasted on the

representation sheet. Representation shall be prepared on white A4
size paper (210 mm x 296.9 mm) (and not on cardboard) of durable
quality. The figure shall be placed in an upright position on the sheet.
The photograph should show the perspective view, front view, side
view, top view, bottom view etc.;

                                                            
33
  Manual of Designs Practice & Procedure published by Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks 

32 
 
 • If design is to be applied to a set, the representation shall depict
various arrangements in which the design is to be applied to articles in
the set;

• Where an application is for a design as applied to a set, whether the

given articles constitute a set or not, shall be determined by the
Controller;

• In case, name or representation of living persons appear on a design,

consent of such persons may be submitted along with the application.
In case of a deceased person, the consent of legal representative may be
submitted. It may be noted that non-submission of such consent may
result in office objections and resultant delay in registration. In case,
the representation contains the image or name of an imaginary person,
such fact may be mentioned in the declaration on the representation
sheet;

• A statement of novelty and disclaimer (if any) in respect of mechanical

action, trademark, word, letter, numerals should be endorsed on each
representation sheet. For specimen statements please see Annexure II;

• Representation, which consists of a repeating surface pattern, shall

show the complete pattern, and a sufficient portion of the repeating
pattern in length and width, and shall not be less than 15 cm by 10 cm
in size;

• The name of applicant shall be mentioned in left hand top corner of the
representation sheet;

• Total number of sheets and sheet number shall be mentioned in the

right hand top corner of the representation sheet in Arabic numerals;

33 
 
 • The representation sheet shall be signed and dated by the
applicant/agent;

• No descriptive matter or matter denoting the components by reference

letters/numerals shall be included;

• No sectional views shall be incorporated in the representation sheet;

• Dimensions or engineering symbols etc. shall not be used in the

representation sheet. The representation is not to be regarded as
engineering drawing of the article. The relevant parameter is the shape
and not the size of the article;

• Where Trade Marks, words, letters or numerals are not the essence of
the design, they shall be removed from the representations or
specimens. Where they are essence of the design, a disclaimer shall be
given in the representation sheet disclaiming any right to their
exclusive use;

• No extraneous matter or background shall appear in the representation

sheet. A background is considered neutral as long as the design is
clearly visible in it;

• Dotted lines may be used in representation to indicate those elements

of the article for which no protection is sought. Dotted lines identify
elements which are not part of the claimed design. In such a case,
features of design for which protection is sought must be shown in
solid lines in the drawing. For instance, an ornamentation or surface
pattern on an article can be registered. In such a case, the
representation shall contain a solid line drawing for the claimed
ornamentation or surface pattern, and dotted line for rest of the article;

34 
 
 • When colour combination is the essence of a design as applied to an
article, the same shall be clearly depicted in the representation;

• Colouring may be used, on a black and white drawing, to highlight

only those features of the design for which protection is sought. In such
cases, it shall be clearly indicated in the novelty statement that the
claim is restricted only to the portions depicted by colouring and the
colours so given are not part of the design;

• Representations shall ordinarily be prepared in one format e.g.

drawings, graphics or photographs etc. However, for better clarity, if
the applicant so desires, a representation may be given in different
formats;

• The applicant shall keep in mind the requirements of an Examiner to

visualize the design and distinguish the same from any probable prior
art. The number of views required in a representation sheet may be
decided in light of this requirement.

6.4 Separate Application is required to be filed for registering a design in more

than one class. [Section 5(3)]

6.5 Classification:

For the purpose of application for registration of designs, articles are

classified into 32 Classes which includes a miscellaneous class 99. The Classes
are described in Third Schedule to The Designs Rules, 2001. In case of any
doubt as to the Class in which the article would fall, the Controller will decide
the question. Where a design application is for an article with multiple
utilities, the application may be made with depiction of an article in any one
or more of the utility. For instance, in case of a design of pen-cum-torch, the
applicant is at liberty to apply in the class relating to pen, torch, pen-torch and
file two applications in different classes for better protection.

35 
 
6.6 Statement of novelty: [Rule 12]

The applicant may endorse on the application and each of the representation,
a brief statement of the novelty he claims for his design.

The Controller may also in some cases ask the applicant to provide a
statement of novelty claimed on the representation sheet. Some of the
examples of novelty endorsed are as under:

• The novelty resides in the ornamental surface pattern of the bottle as

depicted;

• The novelty resides in the butterfly knob of the Casserole;

• The novelty resides in the shape of the ash-tray etc.

If in a design registration no claim or statement of novelty is specifically

stated the registration will cover the whole of the design and no exclusive
right could be claimed in any individual part, shape or pattern.

6.7 Types of applications:

• Ordinary Application - An application which does not claim priority.

Thus, the application is filed for in India first. [Section 5]

• Reciprocity Application – An application which claims priority from an

application already filed in a Convention Country and being filed in
India within six months from the date of filing in Convention Country.
The period of six months is non-extendable. [Section 44, Rule 2(d)]

The requirement for filing of application for registration of reciprocity

application is the same as an ordinary application under the Act except for the
following requirement [Rule 15]:

36 
 
 • Priority document: A reciprocity application shall be accompanied by
a certified copy of the design application filed in the Convention
Country.
• If the priority document was not filed with the application, the same
may be filed within an extendable period of three months. Extension
may be sought by filing Form 18 alongwith prescribed fee.

Advantage & disadvantage of reciprocity application:

The benefit of reciprocity application is that the registration of the said design
under this Act will be in priority to other applications and will have the same
date as the date of application in any other Convention Countries.

The disadvantage is that the proprietor of the design will not be entitled to
recover damages for piracy of design happening prior to the actual date on
which the design is registered in India.

6.8 Examination, objection, acceptance, registration & publication:

6.8.1 Examination:

• Once the application for registration of a design is filed, the same will
be examined by an Examiner for satisfaction of formal requirement, as
per the provisions of the Act and the Rules [Section 5(1)];

• The Examiner conducts a novelty search, classwise or articlewise in the

data base available with it to ascertain that there is no prior publication
and the design applied is novel, subject matter of application
[Section 4 & 5];

• Upon examination, if it is found that the design applied for is already

registered by some other person in respect of some other article, the
design under consideration may be registered only if:

the applicant becomes registered proprietor of the already

registered design but the term of the design under consideration

37 
 
 shall not extend beyond the period of already registered design
[Section 6(3)]

• Where any person makes an application for registration of a design in

respect of any article and either:

(i) That design has been previously registered by other person in

respect of some other article, or

(ii) The design to which the application relates consists of a design

previously registered by other person in respect of the same or
some other article with modifications or variations not sufficient
to alter the character or substantially to affect the identity
thereof.

In that case, if during the pendency of the application, the applicant becomes
the proprietor of the previously registered design, the application shall not be
refused on the ground:

That the design is not new or original being prior registered or being prior
published. [Section 6(4)]

While examining the application, the Examiner also considers other criteria of
registrability as per the Act and Rules including scandalous matter, public
order and morality, security of India etc.

6.8.2 Objection:

Communication:

The Controller considers the report of Examiner on registrability of design

and upon consideration if there are objections, the communication is made to

38 
 
 the applicant. In case of objection pertaining to ground of novelty the specific
prior art is cited with the objection.

If the applicant fails to apply for a hearing within three months from the date
of communication of statement of objections, the application shall be deemed
to be withdrawn.

Removal of objection:

The period for removal of objection shall not exceed the time period of six
months from the date of filing of application which is extendable for a further
period of three months provided a request is made on Form 18 prior to expiry
of six months.

Hearing fixed if response not to the satisfaction of Controller:

On consideration of the response of the applicant, if the Controller is of the

opinion that the requirements of Acts and the Rules have not been met, the
same shall be communicated to the applicant and the hearing should be fixed.

Refusal if hearing not attended:

If, on the date of hearing the applicant does not appear and there is no request
for adjournment the application shall be refused with a speaking order.

Acceptance if compliance made:

If the applicant complies with all the requirements laid down under the Act
and Rules the application shall be registered forthwith.

6.8.3 Acceptance:

If the application is found to be in order and satisfied the requirements of the

Act and the Rules, the Controller will accept the application and register it
forthwith.

6.8.4 Registration:

39 
 
 Once an application is registered, the Controller will issue a certificate of
registration of the design.

Date of registration:

i. For an ordinary application: The date of registration will be the date of

filing of application. [Section 5(6)]

ii. For reciprocity application: The date of registration is the date of filing
of application in the Convention Country.

Certificate of registration:

Upon registration the certificate of registration will be issued by the

Controller and will be sent to the applicant by registered post to the address
for service provided in the application [Section 9]

6.8.5 Publication:

Once an application is registered, it is published in the Patent Office Journal

ordinarily within one month. The registration number is the same as
application number [Section 7]

6.9 Term of registration and extension:[Section 11, Rule 23]

The maximum period of protection for a registered design is 15 years.

Registration of design will be valid for ten years at the first place from the
date of registration which is the date of filing the application.

This period of protection can be extended by five years.

If the applicant desires to extend the period of registration for another five
years, is required to file an application on the prescribed form accompanied
with prescribed fee. [Rule 23]

6.10 Restoration of lapsed design:[Section 12, 13, Rule 24 & 25]

40 
 
 If the design is expired after initial period of protection of ten years, the
proprietor or legal representative of the design may, within one year from the
date on which the design seized to have effect, make an application for
restoration of design in prescribed manner on payment of prescribed fee.

The application should be accompanied with the statement of case setting out
the circumstances leading to failure of renewal and payment of prescribed fee.
The Controller if satisfied that the failure to pay the fee was unintentional and
there has been no undue delay in making the application for restoration, the
Controller will upon payment of any unpaid fee for extension of period
together with prescribed additional fee may restore the registration of a
lapsed design.

The Controller may also put conditions if the need be.

The Controller shall advertise in the official Gazette his decision on the
application for restoration.

6.11 Rights of proprietor of lapsed design:[Section 14]

No suit or other proceedings should be commenced in respect of a case of

design infringement in the design during the period of lapsed registration.

The right of the registered proprietor shall be subject to such provisions as

may be prescribed and to such other provisions as the Controller thinks fit to
impose for the protection and compensation of the persons who may have
started to apply the design during the lapsed period.

6.12 Effect of expiry of registration:

The design registered goes into public domain and becomes a public property
after the expiry of registration. Anybody or everybody is entitled to use and
apply the same on an article even for which it was registered.

****

41 
 
 CHAPTER VII

CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION

7.0 The Act prescribes the procedure and grounds for cancellation of design
registration. Section 19 of the Act deals with cancellation. Section 19 is
reproduced hereinbelow:

19. Cancellation of registration: (1) Any person interested may present a

petition for the cancellation of the registration of a design at anytime after the
registration of the design, to the Controller on any of the following grounds,
namely:-

(a) that the design has been previously registered in India; or

(b) that it has been published in India or in any other country prior to the
date of registration; or

(c) that the design is not a new or original design; or

(d) that the design is not registrable under this Act; or

(e) that it is not a design as defined under clause (d) of section 2.

(2) An appeal shall lie from any order of the Controller under this section
to the High Court, and the Controller may at any time refer any such
petition to the High Court, and the High Court shall decide any
petition so referred.

Therefore, any ‘person interested’ in cancellation of design may file a

cancellation petition anytime on the following grounds that the design is :

• Previously registered in India;

• Previously published in India or foreign country;
• Lacks novelty or originality;
• Not a registrable design; and
• Not a design as per the Act.

42 
 
7.1 Procedure prescribed for cancellation [Rule 29]:

• The petition for cancellation shall be accompanied by a statement of

facts including the statement as to how the petitioner is person
interested and evidence setting out the facts based upon which the
petition is filed;

• On receipt of a petition for cancellation, the Controller shall send a

copy of the petition along with statement and evidence to the
registered proprietor at the earliest;

• The registered proprietor may file counter statement and evidence

with an advance copy to the Petitioner, if any, setting out fully the
grounds up on which he intends to oppose the petition, within one
month which is extendable by a maximum of three months, by filing a
petition for extension with the required fee;

• The petitioner may file his reply statement and evidence, by way of
affidavits by serving an advance copy to the registered proprietor,
within one month which is extendable by a maximum of three months,
by filing a petition for extension with the required fee;

• No further evidence shall be delivered by either party, except with the

leave or direction of Controller;

• After completion of the filing of statement and evidence by the

Petitioner and Registered Proprietor, the Controller shall give at least
ten days‘ notice for hearing;

• On receipt of the notice of hearing, if either party desires to be heard, a

notice of intention to attend the hearing shall be filed in Form 20;

43 
 
 • The Controller may refuse to hear any party which has not given such
notice and fee;

• After hearing the parties, the Controller shall decide the petition and
issue a speaking order. The decision of Controller shall be notified to
the parties and shall be published in the Official Journal;

****

44 
 
 CHAPTER VIII

REGISTER OF DESIGNS & RECTIFICATION OF REGISTER

8.0 REGISTER OF DESIGN: [Section 10]

The register of design shall be prima facie evidence of any matter by this Act
directed or authorised to be entered therein.

Register of designs is maintained at the Patent Office wherein the entries

regarding each registered designs such as name and address of the proprietor,
notifications of assignments and transmission of registered design, any such
other matter as may be prescribed are maintained. Such register may be
maintained wholly or partly on computer floppies or disks or subject to such
safeguards as may be prescribed.

8.1 Rectification of register [Section 31, Form 17, Rule 39, Form 19, Rule 40]:

Any person aggrieved may file an application before the Controller for
rectification of register and for orders making, expunging or varying such
entry as he thinks fit and rectify the register on the following grounds:

i. non-insertion or omission of an entry;

ii. entry made without sufficient cause;

iii. entry wrongly remaining on the register;
iv. error or defect in any entry.

However, the rectification does not include cancellation of a design which is

provided for in Section 19 of the Act.

8.2 Procedure for rectification

On receipt of an application for rectification:

45 
 
 • the Controller shall notify all persons, whose names are entered in the
register;

• rectification application shall be published in the Patent Office Journal;

• notice of opposition may be filed by any person having interest in the

registered design to the application for rectification within three
months from the date of such publication;

• a written statement and evidence shall be filed by the opponent within

fourteen days of giving notice of opposition;

• the Controller shall forward a copy of the notice of opposition along

with the written statement and evidence to the applicant for
rectification within fifteen days of the receipt of statement and
evidence;

• a counter statement and evidence shall be filed by the applicant within

one month from the date of intimation by the Controller with an
advance copy to the opponent. The period of one month is extendable
by the Controller up to a maximum of three months;

• a reply statement and evidence may be filed by the opponent within

one month from the date of delivery of the registered proprietor‘s
counter statement and evidence with an advance copy to the applicant.
The period of one month is extendable by the Controller up to a
maximum of three months;

• no further evidence shall be delivered by either party, except with the

leave or direction of Controller;

46 
 
 • after completion of the filing of statement and evidence by the
opponent and applicant, the Controller shall give at least ten days‘
advance notice of hearing to the parties;

• on receipt of the notice of hearing, if either party desires to be heard, a

notice of intention to attend the hearing shall be filed in Form 20 along
with the prescribed fee;

• the Controller may refuse to hear any party which has not given such
notice and fee;

• after hearing, the Controller shall decide the application for

rectification and issue a speaking order. The decision of Controller
shall be notified to the parties and shall be published in the Official
Journal.

8.3 Appeal:

An appeal shall lie to the High Court from any order of the Controller and
Controller may refer application for rectification to the High Court for
decision and the High Court shall dispose off such referred application.

The appeal shall be made within three months of the date of order passed by
the Controller. In calculating the said order of three months, the time if any,
occupied in granting a copy of the order appealed against shall be excluded.
[Section 36]

****

47 
 
 CHAPTER IX

TRANSFER OF RIGHTS & LICENCES

9.0 Assignment, Transmission, Licenses etc. [Section 30]

9.1 A person may become entitled to the copyright in a registered design by

assignments, transmission or other operation of law by making an application
in the prescribed form to the Controller to register his title. The Controller
shall, on receipt of such application and on proof of title to his satisfaction
register him as the proprietor of such design and shall cause necessary entry
in the register. [Section 30(1)]

Therefore, the registered proprietor of the copyright in a registered design has

power to assign, transmit its right to any other person and that person may
become entitled to copyright in a registered design on account of assignment,
transmission or operation of law.

As per Section 30(2) of the Act, a person may also become entitled to any
interest in a registered design on account of mortgage, license or otherwise
and he can make an application in a prescribed form to the Controller and
necessary entry will be made on verification of the document and on proof of
title to the satisfaction of Controller.

9.2 Assignment must be in writing:

As per Section 30(3) of the Act the assignment of a design or of a share in a

design, a mortgage, license or creation of any other interest in a design shall
not be valid unless the same were reduced in writing in the form of an
instrument embodying the terms and conditions covering their right and
obligations. An application for registration of title under such instrument
should be filed in the prescribed manner with the Controller within six
months from the execution of the instrument. The Controller may extend this
period to a maximum of another six months on application made for the same
in the prescribed manner.

48 
 
9.3 Effective date of assignment:

Upon entry of the particulars in the register of design, the instrument shall be
effective from the date of its execution.

9.4 Registered proprietor has an absolute right to assign as any other movable
property:

As per Section 30(4) the person registered as the proprietor of a design has
absolute power to assign or grant license or otherwise deal with the design
and to give effectual receipts for any consideration for any such assignment,
license or dealing. This right is subject to the provisions of the Act and to any
rights appearing from the register to be vested in any other person. Any
equity in respect of the design may be enforced in like manner as in respect of
any other movable property.

9.5 Unregistered assignment – not enforceable:

As per Section 30(5) an instrument which has not been registered, shall not
ordinarily be admissible in any court as evidence (except for the purpose of
rectification proceedings) unless the court otherwise directs.

****

49 
 
 CHAPTER X

RIGHTS CONFERRED BY REGISTRATION

10.0 Right of registered proprietor - Copyright in registered design:

As per Section 11 of the Act the registered proprietor of a design has the
copyright in the design. The copyright is defined in Section 2(c) which is
reproduced hereinbelow:

“copyright” means the exclusive right to apply a design to any article in any
class in which the design is registered.

Therefore, the proprietor of a design gets exclusive right to apply the design
to an article in which the design is registered. The term of this copyright is 10
years in the first instance which can be extended by another 5 years on
payment of prescribed fee.

10.1 Right to institute a suit for injunction [Section 22]:

A registered proprietor can institute a suit for injunction as well as recovery of

damages against any person engaged in piracy of the registered design. Such
legal proceedings can be instituted from the date of registration till the
subsistence of copyright in the design.

However, in case of reciprocity application, the registered proprietor can

claim damages only from the actual date on which the design is registered in
India. [Section 44]

10.2 Government bound to honour the copyright in the design:

A registered design shall have to all intents the like effect as against the
Government as it has against any other person. However, as in case of
patents, the Central Government has the power to use a registered design for
purposes of Government and to acquire a registered design for public
purpose. [Section 20 & Chapter XVII of The Patents Act].

50 
 
10.3 Provisions of Copyright Act as applied to a design [Section 15 of The
Copyright Act]:

    Section 15 of the Copyright Act is reproduced hereinbelow: 

  15.  Special provision regarding copyright in designs registered or

capable of being registered under the Designs Act, 1911 – (1) Copyright
shall not subsist under this Act in any design which is registered under the
Designs Act, 1911

(2)Copyright in any design, which is capable of being registered under the

Designs Act, 1911, but which has not been so registered, shall cease as soon as
any article to which the design has been applied has been reproduced more
than fifty times by an industrial process by the owner of the copyright, or,
with his licence, by any other person.

As evident, copyright shall not subsist under The Copyright Act in any design
which is registered under The Designs Act. A design registrable under The
Designs Act but has not so registered, would continue to enjoy copyright
protection under the Act so long as the threshold limit of its application on
any article by an industrial process for more than 50 times is reached. Once
the limit is crossed, it would lose its copyright protection under the Copyright
Act.

A Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Microfiber case34 discussed in detail

the objective and scope of Section 15 of The Copyright Act.

“The definition of ‘artistic work’ has a very wide connotation as it is not

circumscribed by any limitation of the work possessing any artistic quality.
Even an abstract work, such as a few lines or curves arbitrarily drawn would
qualify as an artistic work. It may be two dimensional or three dimensional.
The artistic work may or may not have visual appeal.

(a) The rights to which a holder of an original artistic work is entitled are
enumerated in Section 14(c) of the Copyright Act.

(b) It is the exclusive right of the holder of a Copyright in an original artistic

work to reproduce the work in any material form. For example, a drawing
of an imaginary futuristic automobile, which is an original artistic work,

                                                            
34
   2009 (40) PTC 519 Del 

51 
 
 may be reproduced in the three-dimensional material form sing an
element, such as a metal sheet.

(c) The design protection in case of registered works under the Designs Act
cannot be extended to include the copyright protection to the works which
were industrially produced.

(d) A perusal of the Copyright Act and the Designs Act and indeed the
Preamble and the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Designs Act
makes it clear that the legislative intent was to grant a higher protection to
pure original artistic works such as paintings, sculptures etc. and lesser
protection to design activity which is commercial in nature. The
legislative intent is, thus, clear that the protection accorded to a work
which is commercial in nature is lesser than and not to be equated with the
protection granted to a work of pure art.

(e) The original paintings/artistic works which may be used to industrially

produce the designed article would continue to fall within the meaning of
the artistic work defined under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957
and would be entitled to the full period of copyright protection as evident
from the definition of the design under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act.
However, the intention of producing the artistic work is not relevant.

(f) This is precisely why the legislature not only limited the protection by
mandating that the copyright shall cease under the Copyright Act in a
registered design but in addition, also deprived copyright protection to
designs capable of being registered under the Designs Act, but not
registered, as soon as the concerned design had been applied more than 50
times by industrial process by the owner of the copyright or his license.

(g) In the original work of art, copyright would exist and the author/holder
would continue enjoying the longer protection granted under the
Copyright Act in respect of the original artistic work per se.

(h) If the design is registered under the Designs Act, the Design would lose its
copyright protection under the Copyright Act. If it is a design registrable
under the Designs Act but has not so been registered, the Design would
continue to enjoy copyright protection under the Act so long as the
threshold limit of its application on an article by an industrial process for
more than 50 times is reached. But once that limit is crossed, it would lose
its copyright protection under the Copyright Act. This interpretation

52 
 
 would harmonize the Copyright and the Designs Act in accordance with
the legislative intent.”

****

53 
 
 CHAPTER XI

INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT IN A DESIGN:

11.0 What constitutes infringement:

During the subsistence of a copyright in a registered design it is not lawful for

any person to do the following acts [Section 22(1)]:

a) To apply or caused to be applied to any article in any class of articles in

which the design is registered or fraudulent or obvious imitation thereof
or to do anything with a view to enable the design so applied for the
purpose of sale without the written consent or license from the registered
proprietor; or

b) To import for the purpose of sale without the consent of registered

proprietor any article belonging to the class in which the design has been
registered, and having applied to it the design or any fraudulent or
obvious imitation thereof; or

c) To publish or expose or caused to be published or exposed for sale any

article covered by the registration to which the design or any fraudulent
obvious imitation thereof has been applied knowing that such application
has been made without the consent of the registered proprietor.

Therefore, for initiating an infringement action the following facts should be

established:

• The copyright in the design subsists;

• The pirated article is a fraudulent and obvious imitation of registered
design and is covered under the description of articles in the
registration;
• The design applied on the pirated article is without the written consent
or license from the registered proprietor;

54 
 
 • The piracy has been done for the purposes of sale, import or publishing
the article for commercial gains.

11.1 Fraudulent or obvious imitation – meaning and scope:

11.1.1 Fraudulent:

When the imitation of the registered design is with knowledge and sole intent
to cause confusion and deception amongst the consumers for unlawful gain,
the imitation is called fraudulent. If the fraudulent conduct is established the
court will take a stricter view and approach because the imitation is
deliberate.

“...fraudulent imitation seems to me to be an imitation which is based upon,

the deliberately based upon, the registered design and is an imitation which
may be less apparent than an obvious imitation; that is to say, you may have a
more subtle distinction between the registered design and a fraudulent
imitation and yet the fraudulent imitation, although it is different in some
respects from the original, and in respects which render it not obviously an
imitation may yet be an imitation, imitation perceptible when the two designs
are closely scanned and accordingly an infringement”.[Dunlop Rubber Co.
Ltd. V. Gold Ball Developments]

However, for establishing piracy the imitation of the registered design must
be established. The imitation ought to be substantial and the imitated article
should appear substantially similar to genuine article. The test of
determining whether the design is an imitation is judged by the eye of
consumers.

11.1.2 Obvious:

Obvious means something which as soon as you look at it, strike one at once
as being so like the original design, the registered design, as to be almost
unmistakable. I think an obvious imitation is something which is very close
to the original design, the resemblance to the original design being
immediately apparent to the eye looking the two. Dunlop Rubber Co. v. Golf

55 
 
 Ball Development (1931) 48 RPC at p. 279 followed in Castrol India v. Tide Water
Oil Co. (1996) PTC 202 at p. 209.

The Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Dabur India Ltd. V. Amit Jain35 held
that the defendants have copied the bottle and cap design of the plaintiff and
the imitation is fraudulent and obvious. While dealing with the case the court
also relied upon the various judgments to hold that the similarity need not be
necessary to be exact but the test is of substantial similarity. The relevant
paragraphs dealing with such judgements are reproduced herewin below:

“17. The law in regard to similarity which constitutes infringement and

which in turn attracts an order of injunction has been explained by this Court
in Alert India Ltd. (supra). Reference in the said case has been made to an
earlier decision in J.N. Electricals (India) v. President Electricals, ILR
1980 (1) Delhi 215 where it was explained that “the sameness” of features
does not necessarily mean that the two designs must be identical on all points
and should differ on none. They have to be substantially the same. In Alert
India Ltd. it was held as under:

36. Thus for determining whether two designs are identical or not,
it is not necessary that the two designs should be exactly the same.
The main consideration to be applied is whether the broad features of
shape, configuration, pattern etc. are same or nearly the same and if
they are substantially the same then it will be a case of imitation of the
design of one by the others.

18. Likewise in Castrol India Ltd. the Calcutta High Court explained
that “the word ‘imitation’ does not mean ‘duplication’ in the sense that the
copy complained of need not be an exact replica. “Reference was made to the
earlier decision of the said High Court in Best Products Ltd. v. F.S.
Woolworth & Company Ltd., 1964 RPC where it was held that “it is the
article as a totality that must be compared and contrasted with the features of
a shape and configuration shown in the totality observable from the
representation of the design as registered. It was said that the Court must
address its mind as to whether the design adopted by the defendants was
substantially different from the design which was registered. “The decision in
Dunlop rubber Co. Ltd. v. Golf Ball Developments Ltd., (1931) XLVIII
RPC 268 is also a pointer to the approach to be adopted by the Court when a
complaint is made by a Plaintiff of fraudulent imitation of its design by a
                                                            
35
   2009 (39) PTC 104 

56 
 
 Defendant. It was observed “a fraudulent imitation seems to be an imitation
which is based upon, and deliberately based upon, the registered design and is
an imitation which may be less apparent than an obvious imitation; that is to
say, you may have a more subtle distinction between the registered design and
a fraudulent imitation and yet the fraudulent imitation, although it is
different in some respects from the original, and in respects which render it
not obviously an imitation may yet be an imitation, imitation perceptible
when the two designs are closely scanned and accordingly an infringement.”

As explained in Hindustan Sanitaryware if the Court is able to find

that, “there is substantial and sufficient resemblance between the allegedly
infringed designs and the Appellant’s registered designs, an injunction should
follow.

Therefore, obvious imitation means that there is a substantial similarity

between the original and pirated design.

11.2 To constitute infringement, the court is to judge the similarity or difference

through the eye alone:

To establish the question of substantial similarity or substantial difference of

genuine and pirated design article, the court is entitled to look at the
specimen of the article. It is the eye alone of the court which with the
perspective of the consumers and traders will decide such question. In
Dunlop Rubber Co. v. Golf Ball Developments Ltd. Farewell J observed as under:

“Now in a case where the registered design is made up of a pattern which has
no striking feature in it, but it appeals to the eye as a whole, it may very well
be that another design may be that is so; but I think conversely it is true to say
that, if a design has in it a striking feature which catches and holds the eye,
and which is the one thing that strikes the eye when one looks at the design, a
design which otherwise may be like a registered design but which eliminates
the striking feature or alters it so that it is not recognisable, in such a case it
seems to me it is impossible to say that one is an imitation of the other.”

11.3 Side by side comparison is not the test:

To constitute infringement the only test is of substantial similarity. The side by

side comparison to find out the differences is not the test. Further, imitation of

57 
 
 a single novel feature in a design may make the pirated design substantially
similar and in that case side by side comparison to find out the differences
between the two designs is not permissible.

11.4 Confusion or deception is not necessary:

To constitute infringement of design, it is not necessary to prove confusion or

deception. Such test is appropriate where the petitioner pleads passing off. In
case of infringement of design, the question is not whether the similarity has or
is likely to cause confusion or deception of a purchaser but whether the
similarity is an imitation of the registered design sufficient to destroy the
exclusive right of user of the proprietor despite the fact that no confusion is or
may be caused as to the source of the goods. Otherwise, every registered
design could be imitated with impunity merely by changing the colour of the
two products thus obviating any confusion.36

11.5 Infringement of design in cases where three dimensional representation is

done of a two dimensional design:

If a design is registered in two dimension, a representation of the same in three

dimension would constitute infringement and the defence that the registration
is for two dimension and not for three dimension will not exonerate the person
from the liability of committing an infringement.

In Puneet Industrial Controls V. Aditya Enterprises37 the defendant was hold

to be committing infringement since he manufacture the product using the
plaintiff’s drawing without obtaining plaintiff’s consent. The defendant failed
to establish that the product could have been made without using the plaintiff’s
drawings.

                                                            
36
  1996 PTC 16 
37
  1999 PTC 311 

58 
 
11.6 Remedies against infringement [Section 22(2)]:

Damages or compensation where a person is guilty of piracy as per Section 22

of the Act he shall be liable for every contravention of the section to pay the
registered proprietor of the design a sum not exceeding Rs.25,000/- recoverable
as a contract debt.

If the registered proprietor of the design files a suit for infringement and
recovery of damages for any contravention, the court may restrain the
infringer/pirator and award such damages as it deems appropriate. The
assessment of the damages by the court depends upon various factors such as
the conduct of the defendant, the royalty which the plaintiff is receiving from
others, the quantum of infringing goods seized from the premises of the
defendant etc.

11.7 Defences available to the defendant [Section 22(3)]:

In a suit or any other proceeding the defendant can raise every ground on
which the registration of a design may be cancelled under Section 19 of the Act.
Meaning thereby the defendant in a suit proceeding can raise the issue of
novelty, prior publication, prior registration, mere trade variant, lacking
originality, not a registrable design etc. and the court will deal with the issues
raised by the defendant on the basis of evidence produced by the parties. The
court is also empowered to pass a judgment invalidating or upholding the
validity of the design of the plaintiff.

11.8 Entry of decree passed by the court in design register [Section 22(5)]:

Every decree which is passed by the court in a suit for injunction and damages,
will be sent to the Controller for making the entry thereof in the register as per
Section 22(5) of the Act.

59 
 
11.9 Action for groundless threat [Section 23]:

Section 23 of the Act provides that so far as the groundless threat of the legal
proceeding is concerned for the registered designs, the provisions of Section
106 of The Patent Act, 1970 will apply in like manner as they apply to in the
case of patents.

****

60 
 
 CHAPTER XII
POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE CONTROLLER

12.0 Power of a Civil Court [Section 32]:

In any proceedings before the Controller under this Act, the Controller has
the powers of a civil court for the purpose of:

• receiving evidence;
• administering oaths;
• enforcing the attendance of witnesses;
• proceedings compelling the discovery and production of documents;
• issuing commissions for the examining of witnesses; and
• awarding costs, such award being executable as a decree of a Civil
Court.

12.1 Exercise of discretionary power [Section 33, Rule 44]

• Principle of natural justice to be followed while exercising any

discretionary power by the Controller. Before acting adverse to any
party, the Controller shall give an opportunity of being heard to the
party with at least ten days notice.

• Every order should be a reasoned and speaking order.

12.2 Power to seek direction of Central Government [Section 34]:

In case of any doubt or difficulty arising in the administration or provisions of

this Act, the Controller may seek directions of Central Government in the
matter

12.3 Power to correct clerical errors [Section 29]:

On a request made in Form 14 alongwith requisite fee, the Controller may

correct any clerical error in the representation of a design or in the name or

61 
 
 address of the proprietor of any design or in any other matter which is entered
upon the register.

12.4 General Power of amendment [Rule 46]:

The Controller has power to amend any document or correct any irregularity in
procedure without detriment to the interest of any person upon such terms as
he deems fit and may direct.

12.5 General Powers to grant extension of time [Rule 47]:

The Controller may extend the time prescribed by the Rules for doing any act
or taking any proceeding subject to maximum period prescribed under the
Rules. Where time limit is prescribed in the Act, the Controller has no power to
extend the time.

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

62