60 years, ,20 years extendable, 10 years 5 extendable

Unit-1

Section 13- works in which copyright subsists

Section 2(h)- dramatic works- recitation, choregraphic work, entertainment in a
dumb-shjow acting form
Section 2(p)- musical work- graphical notation
Section 2(c)- artisitic works
Section 2(f)- cinematograph films
Section 38- perfomers right
Section 2(xx)- sound recording
Eastern Book company v D.B Modhak- sweat of the brow doctrine- orginality-
minimal degree of creativity, skill and effort erequired for copyright. Issue of
wehther posting judghements in EBC books amounted to copyright. Held that adding
cross- citations, marginal headings, nsames of judges, numbering, etc do not amount
to copyright however, segregating paragrpahs, adding internal para numbering,
indicating dissented, partly agreed, allowed, etc amounted to show of skill and
understanding of the opinion and therefore amounteeed to copyright as it was not a
mere mechanical process. (General stuff about copyright)

Agarwala Publishing house v Board of high school- orginality in litreary works case.
Question paper puiblishment not allowed. Work should just not be copied from
abnother and should be orginal in the sense that it is expressed in a unique way.

Macmillan & Co. v. K. & J. Cooper, AIR 1924 PC 55 this landmark case, Macmillan
published an educational edition of "Plutarch’s Life of Alexander," comprising
selected passages from Sir Thomas North’s translation, supplemented with original
annotations, introductions, and notes. K. & J. Cooper subsequently released a similar
edition, replicating the selected passages and many of Macmillan’s annotations. The
Privy Council held that while the selection of public domain text alone did not
warrant copyright protection, Macmillan’s original annotations and supplementary
materials did constitute copyrightable content. The court concluded that K. & J.
Cooper’s reproduction of these annotations amounted to copyright infringement,
emphasizing that copyright safeguards the original expression of ideas, not the ideas
themselves. (Case of abridgement)

Section 14. Meaning of copyright.-- , copyright means the exclusive right subject to
the provisions of this Act, to do or authorise the doing of any of the following acts in
respect of a work or any substantial part thereof, namely--
(a) in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work, not being a computer
programme,--
(i) to reproduce the work in any material form including the storing of it in any
medium by electronic means;
(ii) to issue copies of the work to the public not being copies already in
circulation;
 (iii) to perform the work in public, or communicate it to the public;
(iv) to make any cinematograph film or sound recording in respect of the work;
(v) to make any translation of the work;
(vi) to make any adaptation of the work;
(vii) to do, in relation to a translation or an adaptation of the work, any of the
acts specified in relation to the work in sub-clauses (i) to (vi);
(b) in the case of a computer programme:
(i) to do any of the acts specified in clause (a);
[(ii) to sell or give on commercial rental or offer for sale or for commercial
rental any copy of the computer programmer:
(c) in the case of an artistic work,--
3[(i) to reproduce the work in any material form including--
(A) the storing of it in any medium by electronic or other means; or
(B) depiction in three-dimensions of a two-dimensional work; or
(C) depiction in two-dimensions of a three-dimensional work;]
(d) in the case of a cinematograph film,--
4[(i) to make a copy of the film, including--
(A) a photograph of any image forming part thereof; or
(B) storing of it in any medium by electronic or other means;]
5[(ii) to sell or give on commercial rental
(iii) to communicate the film to the public;
(e) in the case of a sound recording,--
(i) to make any other sound recording embodying it 6[including storing
(ii) to sell or give on commercial rental or offer for sale
(iii) to communicate the sound recording to the public.

Donogue v allied newspapers- idea-expression dictohmy. COpyright only subsits In

the language of the original work. Also mere transcribing and typign does not entrust
copyright ina person, rather the one who dictates is the owner.

R. G anand v delux films- idea expression dictohmy- Hum hindustani play case of
NEW DELHI film

Zee Television Ltd. v. Sundial Communication Pvt. Ltd. (2003 (27) PTC 457 Bom DB)
In this case, the plaintiff claimed copyright infringement and breach of confidence
regarding an original concept for a television serial, “Krishan Kanhaiyya,” which was
developed into detailed written materials and registered with the Film Writers
Association. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants used the same concept after
initially showing interest but not proceeding with the project. The court found a
confidential relationship existed between the parties despite no written agreement.
Applying the test from the R.G. Anand case, the court held that there was unlawful
copying and infringement of copyright due to substantial similarities in the works,
particularly noting that the defendant’s show would lose meaning if the child-form
Krishna element—originating from the plaintiff—was removed. While the court
acknowledged that ideas per se are not copyrightable, it emphasized that the
substantial similarity in the expression of the idea warranted protection.
Francis Day and Hunter Ltd v Bron- in order to constitute reproduction there must
be sufficient simialirity between two works and some casual connection
John Wiley and Sons v Prabhat Chander Kumar Jain- first sales doctrine- books of
regional low prices for sale in 7 sisters countries was sold outside. Held that first sale
doctrine valid and author loses his rights as soon as he sells it.

Performing rights society ltd v Harlequinn records shop - performance of work in

public- where records are played continously in shops to attract customers, it
amounts to performance in public and communnication of work.

Warner Bros Entertainment v Mr Santosh V.G- Renting of unauthorized orginal

imported DVDs amount to copyrighrt ifnringement.

Section 52- permitted use and fair dealing- ( extent, purpose, notive)- private
personal review including reearch, citiscism or review, reporting of current events
and or lectures

Section 51- infringement- casual connection, close similarity, indirect or direct

unlawful use of original work and access to the original work
R.G Anand v Delux films Leading case law

Section 57- moral rights

Section 38- performers rights
Section 38B- moral rights of perofrmers
Section 37- broadcasters right

1. Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India (2005 SCC OnLine Del 365)

This landmark case revolved around the protection of an artist’s moral rights under
Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Amar Nath Sehgal, a renowned sculptor, had
created a 20-foot-long bronze mural for the Vigyan Bhavan in New Delhi in 1962.
This mural, commissioned by the Government of India, was displayed prominently in
the Bhavan until it was arbitrarily removed in the 1970s and subsequently stored in a
damaged condition. Sehgal was neither informed nor consulted before the removal
of his artwork, and when he discovered that his masterpiece was left in a neglected
state, he filed a case against the Union of India, claiming that the destruction of his
work violated his moral rights under Section 57 of the Copyright Act. The Delhi High
Court ruled in Sehgal’s favor, stating that the artist retains moral rights over their
work even after the economic rights are assigned or transferred. The court
recognized that under Section 57, an author has the right to prevent distortion,
mutilation, or modification of their work if it is prejudicial to their honor or
reputation. The court held that Sehgal had a right to be identified as the creator of
the mural, and any damage or alteration to his work without consent violated his
moral rights. The government was directed to return the mural to Sehgal,
acknowledging that an artist’s connection to their creation is not merely economic
but deeply personal and reputational. This case is significant as it established the
supremacy of moral rights over ownership rights, affirming that even the
government cannot violate an artist’s moral rights by modifying or destroying their
work without due consideration.

In Akuate Internet Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Star India Pvt. Ltd. (2013), the Delhi High
Court held that live cricket match updates (such as scores) are mere facts and not
copyrightable under Indian law. Star India, despite having exclusive broadcasting
rights, could not restrict others from disseminating factual information. The court
rejected the U.S.-based "hot news" doctrine, emphasizing that Indian law only
protects rights explicitly provided under the Copyright Act. It also ruled that the
defendants’ actions did not amount to unfair competition or unjust enrichment.
Importantly, the judgment upheld the defendants’ constitutional rights to freedom
of speech and trade.

This case is a pivotal example of moral rights protection concerning literary works.
Mannu Bhandari, a celebrated Hindi novelist, wrote a widely acclaimed novel titled
"Aapka Bunty". Kala Vikas Pictures Pvt. Ltd., a film production house, acquired the
rights to adapt the novel into a feature film. However, during the adaptation
process, the producers made substantial alterations to the storyline and characters,
distorting the original essence of Bhandari’s novel. She objected to these
unauthorized changes, as she believed they compromised the integrity of her work
and misrepresented her original vision. When her concerns were ignored, Bhandari
filed a lawsuit, invoking Section 57 of the Copyright Act, asserting her moral rights as
an author. The Delhi High Court upheld Bhandari’s claim and ruled that an author’s
moral rights are inviolable, even if the economic rights have been transferred. The
court recognized that, under Section 57, an author has the right to prevent
distortion, mutilation, or modification of their work, particularly when such changes
damage their honor and reputation. It was held that any substantial deviation from
the original work required the author's consent, and since the producers had made
modifications without consulting Bhandari, their actions amounted to an
infringement of her moral rights. The court restricted the filmmakers from
distorting the core theme of the novel and ensured that any adaptation remained
faithful to the author’s vision.

This case reinforced the concept of moral rights in literary works, affirming that an
author’s control over their creation extends beyond mere financial interests and
includes the right to safeguard its authenticity. It also set an important precedent
that filmmakers or publishers must respect the author’s creative control, even
when they acquire adaptation rights.

Camlin Private Limited v. National Pencil Industries, (2002) Del, Delhi High Court
held that copyright subsists only in an original literary work. But it is not necessary
that the work should be the expression of the original or inventive thought, for
Copyright Act are not concerned with the originality of ideas, but with the expression
of thought, and in the case of a literary work, with the expression of thought in print
or writing. Originality for the purpose of copyright law relates to the expression of
thought, but such expression need not be original or novel. The essential
requirement is that the work must not be copied from another work but must
originate from the author.

Section 17- ownership of copyright- author js first owner except in exceptional

circumstances--
 author of literary dramatic or artistic works is in employment,
 when picture or potrait taken for thr benefit of simone else for valuable
consideration,
 cases which don’t fall under the above categroeies then the CR rests with the
employer,
 lectures given in public on behalf of another then another is owner
 Government work then government is owner
 Work on behalf of a public undertaking
 Work on behalf of certain international organisation then such organisations
shall be the owner under proivisio of section 40

University of London v tutorial press- examiner who prepares question is in contract

for servbice and thus copyrights vests with him as the procedure of preparing the
question papers is his independent process.

Eastern Indian motion pictures v performing rights society- cinema film producer
comissions a music producer to produce music then the first owner is the producer
and not the composer.

Diljeet titus v Alfred A Adebare- law firm manging partner resign, takes company
database, infrignement case says that he isnt employee so 17(c) not applicable,
Rejected held that integration tests says hes employee so 17c is applicable and
computer database is copyright protected.

Gee pee films pvt ltd v Pratik choudhary - scope of section 17 for producers. Held
that to be producer you haver to take legal and financial repsosniblity in case of
sound recordings. If comissioned work gwt a written agreement.

Section 18- Assignment of copyright

Sectiojn 19- mode of assignment-
1. Need written order assigning such right
2. Shall specify the work, the duration and terriotrial extent
3. Amount of royalty and other consideration
4. Will lapse in 1 year if not used
5. Period of assignment if not stated then 5 yeaars
6. Terriotoiral extent if not provided then its India
7. It shall not effect author of cinemtogrpah work or commposers to seek royalties
Section 30- licensing
Section 31- compulsory licesning
Section 32- stautory licensing

Ms entertainment network (India) ltd v super Cassette Industries- compulsory

licesning page 59

Gramphpone Co of India Ltd v Mars Recording- cover versions not copyright if only a
close imitation

2. Mannu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Pictures Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (AIR 1987 Del 13)

The Authors Guild v. Google Inc. (2015) case dealt with this issue when Google
digitized millions of books without permission but provided only snippet views for
search purposes. The U.S. courts ruled that Google’s project qualified as fair use
because it transformed the way books were accessed and searched, rather than
directly competing with the original works. This case highlights the tension between
copyright holders’ rights and the benefits of digital innovation.

Nav Sahitya Prakash & Others v. Anan Kumar

& Others AIR 1981 All 200).
Sections 44 and 45 of the Act is only an enabling provision and the provisions
contained therein do not affect common law right to sue for infringement of the
copyright, therefore, registration of the work under the Act is not compulsory and
that registration is not a condition precedent for maintaining a suit for damages for
infringement of copyright (R. Madhavan v. S K Nayar AIR 1988 Ker 39). The only
effect of registration is what is stated in Section 48, to wit, that it shall be prima facie
evidence of the particulars entered in the register. There is no indication in any of
the provisions of the Act, read individually or a whole, to suggest that registration is
condition precedent to subsistence of copyright or acquisition of ownership thereof.

Kartar Singh Giani v. Ladha Singh & Others AIR 1934, Lah 777 (DB).
The copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed by any person who, without
the consent of the owner of the copyright, does anything, the sole right to do which
is conferred on the owner of the copyright.

Associated Electronic & Electrical Industries (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Sharp
Tools AIR 1991 Kar 406] - Layman test, sharp and sharp tools case

n Eastern Book Company & Others v. Navin J. Desai & Another 2001 PTC (21) 57
Del., Delhi High Court has held: 202 PP-IPRL&P Copyright is a limited monopoly
having its origin in protection. There cannot be any monopoly in the subject matter
which the author has borrowed from public domain. Others are at liberty to use the
same material. Material in which no one has a copyright is available to all. Every man
can take what is useful from the, improve, add and give to the public the whole
comprising the original work with his additions and improvements. Under the guise
of the copyright, the plaintiffs cannot ask the Court to restrain the defendants
from making this material available to public. Judgements/orders published by the
plaintiffs in their law reports ‘Supreme Court Cases’ is not their original literary work
but has been composed of, complied and prepared from and reproduction of the
judgements of the Supreme Court of India, open to all. Merely bycorrecting certain
typographical or grammatical mistakes in the raw source and by adding commas, full
stops and by giving paragraph numbers to the judgement will not their work as the
original literary work entitled to protection under the Copyright Act. Plaintiffs,
therefore, have no copyright in the judgements published in their law reports. There
being no copyright in the plaintiffs, there is no question of the defendant infringing
any alleged copyright. Plaintiffs have failed to make out any prima facie case in their
favour and are, therefore, not entitled to any relief in the application

Section 54 defines the term owner of copyright. In Rupendra Kashyap v. Jiwan

Publishing House 1996 PTC (16) 439 Del., it was held that CBSE is a public
undertaking; examination papers are literary work made under the direction and
control of CBSE and applicability of Section 17(dd) of Copyright Act is squarely
attracted to the facts of the case. CBSE is the first owner of the copyright in the
examination papers on which examinations are conducted by it

Section 51: infirngement of copyright

Section 52: fair use

Super cassettes industries v hamar television- T series fair use case

The case of The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford v.
Rameshwari Photocopy Services (2016) is a landmark judgment in Indian copyright
law that significantly expanded the interpretation of fair dealing under Section 52 of
the Copyright Act, 1957. The dispute arose when Rameshwari Photocopy Services, a
small shop near Delhi University, was engaged in the practice of making and
distributing compilations of excerpts from textbooks published by Oxford University
Press, Cambridge University Press, and Taylor & Francis. These compilations,
commonly known as "course packs," contained relevant sections from various
academic books, which were photocopied and sold to students at an affordable
price. The publishers contended that this act constituted copyright infringement, as
the photocopying and sale of substantial portions of their works were done without
obtaining prior permission or paying any royalties.
The case ignited a larger debate on access to education versus intellectual property
rights, particularly in the context of a developing country like India, where the
affordability of educational materials remains a serious challenge. The publishers
argued that permitting such photocopying would negatively impact their business
and discourage authors and publishers from producing high-quality academic
content. On the other hand, the defendants, along with student groups and
academic institutions, contended that making educational materials accessible was
essential for promoting knowledge dissemination, and the practice fell within the
scope of fair dealing. It was argued that students and institutions relied on course
packs as a practical necessity, given the high cost of imported textbooks.I
n its ruling, the Delhi High Court held that the reproduction of copyrighted material
for educational purposes constituted fair dealing and did not amount to copyright
infringement. The court observed that Section 52(1)(i) of the Copyright Act explicitly
permits the reproduction of copyrighted material for instruction or educational
purposes, and that this exemption is broad enough to cover the preparation and
distribution of course packs by an educational institution or its authorized agents.
The court further emphasized that since the photocopying was being done without
any commercial motive, and its primary objective was to facilitate education, it
could not be considered as infringing the economic rights of the publishers in an
unjust manner.

In Bucyrus Europe Ltd. v. Vulcan Industries Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2005(30) PTC
279, the court observed

that an Anton Piller order can be passed in the following situations:

• Where the plaintiff has an extremely strongly prima facie case;

• Where the actual or potential damage to the plaintiff is very serious.

• Where it was clear that the defendant possessed vital evidence; and

• There was a real possibility that the defendant might destroy or dispose of such
material so as to

defeat the ends of justice. The purpose of Anton Piller order is the preservation of
evidences.

The application of Anton Piller order in India is still in nascent stage and lot many
questions are still left unanswered

International copyright order- Section 40 copyright act

aktiengesellsschaft v Mr Sadiq Pasha- germany SAP software case. Held
infirgnement under international copyright order, 1999 as germany is a country
under Scheidule 2 of the Act.

Unit -2
Section 2(1)(zb)- A trade mark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or combination of
words, phrases, symbols or designsused in the course of trade which identifies and
distinguishes the source of the goods or services of one enterprise from those of
others.
As stated above, the definition of "trade mark" under has been enlarged to mean a
mark capable of being represented graphically and which is capable of distinguishing
the goods or services of one person from others
Section 2(1)(g)- “Collective mark” under of the Act means a trade mark
distinguishing the goods or services of members of an association of persons (not
being a partnership within the meaning of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932) which is
the proprietor of the mark from those of others.
Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 “well-known trade mark”, in relation
to any goods or services, means a mark which has become so to the substantial
segment of the public which uses such goods or receives such services that the use
of such mark in relation to other goods or services would be likely to be taken as
indicating a connection in the course of trade or rendering of services between those
goods or services and a person using the mark in relation to the first-mentioned
goods or services.
Section 25- renewal of trademark and registration valid upto 10 years.
Section 21- notice of opposition to trademark

Procedure for filing trademarks:

1. Filing of trademark in the relevant office by paying thr required fees
2. Review by trademark office
3. Prelimenary approval
4. Show cause and objections
5. Registration of the mark

Requisites for registration/ grounds for approval:

1. Should be a trademaark within the scope of the definition- capable of being
represtened graphically and should be distinctive.
2. Section 9(1)- devoid of any distinctive character (cannot diffrentiate between two
goods), descriptive words or charaterstics of the good, marks which have become
bonafide customary in the language of the trade. However, this wont prohibit
registration of well-known marks.
3. Section 9(2)- devieve public or cause confusion (test of common intelligence),
hurt religious sentiments, banned under emblems act or obsence content
4. Section 9(3)- if mark is exclusively the shape of the goods which results from the
nature of the goods themselves
5. Section 11- relative grounds for refusal- similarity with a pre exisitng trademark,
Exception is section 12 of concurrent use (good faith, concurrent use, distinctiveness
and public interest I.e does not cause deception)

Whirlpool case” [N. R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation, 1996 (16) PTC 583]
in which the Court held that a rights holder can maintain a passing off action against
an infringer on the basis of the trans-border reputation of its trade marks and that
the actual presence of the goods or the actual use of the mark in India is not
mandatory. It would suffice if the rights holder has attained reputation and goodwill
in respect of the mark in India through advertisements or other means.
Ambalal Sarbhai Enterprises Limited v. Tata Oil Mills Company Limited 1988 OTC 73
Bom, it was held that the word PROMIX was distinctive. The Court held that even
though there are many trade marks in the register with the prefix PRO which is
common to the trade, the applicants have particularly coined the word PROMIX and
the samewas not known earlier. Applicants are the proprietors of a series of trade
marks having prefixed PRO as a leading distinguishing feature. Their trade mark is
distinctive and so can be registered under the Act. Length of user is also a strong
factor for consideration of registration.

Burrogh Wellcome v. Uni Sole Pvt. Ltd., 1999 (Section 9(2)).The medical
preparations sold at the prescription by doctors and supplied by qualified
pharmacists have been considered a special case for determining deceptive
similarity. The test was not of the ordinary
customers but whether the pharmacists or doctors would be confused. Therefore, in
the field of drugs and chemicals, the names with small variations are allowed.
Bombay High Court has applied the test of person of ordinary intelligence as against
doctors and pharmacists. The Court took the judicial notice of the fact that various
medicines which are required by law to be sold per prescription, in actual practice
they are sold without such prescription inspite of the mandate of the law.

Tata Sons Limited v Mr. Md Javed (Well known trademark)- a well known
trademark is the one which is widely known to the relevant public and enjoys a high
reputation. Digital world so cross border reputation. Owner of well known mark may
cancel or oppose registration and prohibit usage. Important to protect even if such
mark not registere din own country.

Section 29- Infringement of trademark- if mark is identical, used for similar goods,
or deceptively similar, identical or similarity, likely to cause confusion
Section 29 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 deals with infringement.
In this context, the ingredients of Section 29 (1) are as follows:-
1. The plaintiff’s mark is registered.
2. The defendant’s mark is identical with, or deceptively similar to
plaintiff’s registered mark;
3. The defendant has taken any essential feature of the mark or
has taken the whole of the mark and then made a few additions
and alterations.
4. The defendant’s use of the mark is in course of the trade in
respect of goods/services covered by the registered trademark.
5. The use of the infringing mark must be printed or usual
representation of the marking advertisements, invoices or bills.
Any oral use of the trademark is not infringement.
6. The use by the defendant is in such manner as to render the
use of the mark likely to be taken as being used as a trademark.
7. The defendant’s use of the mark is not by way of permitted
user and accordingly unauthorised infringing use.
Procedural Difference:-
1. In an infringement action, if there was colourable imitation, the
fact that the get up was different was not relevant in an
infringement action though it might have had relevance in a
passing off action.
2. In passing off action identity or similarity of marks is not
sufficient, there must also be likelihood of confusion. But in case
of infringement if the marks are identical or similar no further
proof is required.
3. An infringement action is based on the violation of the
proprietary right and deception can be one of the ways whereas
in a passing off action deception or likelihood of deception is the
only thing to be established.
4. An infringement action does not require the use of the mark.
The proprietor could have never used the mark in the course of
the business and still bring an action for infringement whereas in
a passing off action the plaintiff must establish that the mark by
usage has become distinctive of his goods i.e. the goods are
identified by the mark.
5. In an action for infringement, the plaintiff must make out that
the use of the defendant’s mark is so close either visually,
phonetically or otherwise and the court reaches the conclusion
that there is an imitation, no further evidence is required to
establish that the plaintiff’s rights are violated. Whereas, in case
of passing off thedefendant may escape liability if he can show
that the added matter is sufficient to distinguish his goods from
the goods of the plaintiff.
6. In case of a passing off action, the defendant’s goods need not
be same as that of the plaintiff, they may be allied or even
different. In case of an action for infringement, the defendant’s
use of the offending mark may be in respect of the goods for
which the mark is registered or similar goods.

S.M. Dychem v. Cadbury India 2000 PTC 297 (SC), the Apex Court said that on the
first impression we are of the view that the dissimilarities appear to be clear and
more striking to the naked eye than any similarity between the marks, and on the
whole the essential features of two marks are different. The Court further said that if
the essential features have been copied, the intention to deceive or cause confusion
is not relevant in an infringement action. If a false representation is made out even
when there is no intention to deceive or confuse it is sufficient to constitute
infringement. However, in the present case on the question of relative strength, the
decision must go in favour of the defendant and the High Court was righ

Parle Products v. J P & Co. AIR 1972 SC 1359, the Apex Court observed that in this
case the packets are practically of the same size, the colour scheme of the two
wrappers is almost the same; the design on both, though not identical, bears such
close resemblance that one can easily be mistaken for the other. The essential
features of both are that there is a girl with one arm raised and carrying something
in the other with a cow or cows near her and hens or chickens in the foreground. In
the background there is a farm house with a fence. The words “Gluco Biscuits” on
one and “Glucose Biscuits” on the other occupy a prominent place at the top with a
good deal of similarity between the two writings. Anyone, in our opinion, who has a
look at one of the packets on a day, may easily mistake the other if shown on
another day as being the same article which he had seen before. If one was not
careful enough to note the peculiar features of the wrapper on the plaintiffs’ goods,
he might easily mistake the defendant’s wrapper for the plaintiffs’ if shown to him
some time after he had seen the plaintiffs. After all, an ordinary purchaser is not
gifted with the powers of observation of a Sherlock Holmes.
The Court held that the defendants’ wrapper is deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’
registered trade mark. For infringement nothing more is required to be proved.

M/s J K Oil Mills v. M/s Adani Wilmar Ltd., 2010 (42) PTC 639 (Del.), the Delhi High
Court held that in order to constitute infringement under the provisions of Section
29 of the Trade Marks Act, it would be necessary to show that impugned trade mark
(label) is identical or deceptively similar to the registered trade mark. And once the
plaintiff is able to establish that the impugned trade mark (label) is identical
ordeceptively similar to the registered trade mark (label) then, it matters little
whether the defendant is using the impugned mark/label in respect of the goods and
services which are not similar to those in respect of which the trade mark is
registered

Hearst Corpn. v. Dalal Street Communication Ltd. 1996 PTC 126 at 129 (Cal),
said that in an action for infringement – (a) the plaintiff must be the registered
owner of atrade mark; (b) the defendant must use a mark deceptively similar to the
plaintiff’s mark; (c) the use must be in relation to the goods in respect of which the
plaintiff’s mark is registered; (d) the use by the defendant must not be accidental but
in the course of trade. In the present case, the plaintiff had been publishing a
monthly magazine from 1933 and selling the same in the name of its registered
trade mark ‘Esquire’ since 1942. The plaintiff also owned the copyright in the script,
get-up and style in which the trade mark ‘Esquire’ is retailed. From October, 1994
the defendant started publishing a monthly magazine with the name ‘Esquare’.
Relying on the Pianotist Co. Ltd. (1906) 23 RFC 774, Roche & Co. v. Manners & Co.
(P) Ltd., AIR 1970 SC 2062 & 2064 wherein it was held that it must be seen whether
there was an overall similarity between the two names in respect of the same
description of goods, both visually as well as phonetically, the Court remarked that
the covers of the magazines of the defendant would appear to be framed with the
idea of attracting the male interest whatever might be the contents. For these
reasons, on the basis of the phonetic similarity, it appears to be clear that an unwary
purchaser of average intelligence and imperfect recollection would be likely to
confuse the defendant’s use of the mark ‘Esquare” on its magazine with the
plaintiff’s publication ‘Esquire’. Another way of considering the issue of infringement
is if the defendant’s mark was an imitation of the plaintiff’s mark. This, of course,
implies a certain lack of bona fides on the imitators’ part. Injunction was
issued to restrain the defendant from infringing registered trade mark of the
plaintiff.

TV. Venugopal v. Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd- well known trademark case study.
Eenadu agarbatti case. Well known trade mark infringed in andhra pradesh

Cadila Health Care Ltd. Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.19,

held that the following factors to be considered in case of an
action for passing off action of an unregistered trademark for
deciding the question of deceptive similarity:-
1. The nature of the marks, i.e, whether the marks are word
marks or label marks or composite marks, i.e, both words or label
works.
2. The degree of resemblance between the marks, phonetically
similar and hence similar in idea.
3. The nature of goods in respect of which they are used as
trademarks.
4. The similarity in nature, character and performance of goods of
the rival traders.
5. The class of purchasers who are likely to buy the goods
bearing the marks they are likely to exercise in purchasing and/or
using the goods.
6. The mode of purchasing the goods or placing orders for the

Ramdev Food Products Ltd. vs. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel (2006)

In this case, the Supreme Court of India clarified the scope of acquiescence, holding
that mere delay in bringing a lawsuit does not constitute acquiescence. The court
stated that for acquiescence to apply, there must be evidence of the trademark
owner’s implied consent or encouragement of the infringer’s use of the mark. The
court further held that delay alone, without any positive act by the trademark
owner, does not amount to acquiescence.

Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, pertains to the jurisdiction for filing suits
related to trademark infringement and passing off. It stipulates that such suits must be
instituted in a District Court having jurisdiction. Notably, Section 134(2) provides that
the plaintiff can file a suit in the district court within whose jurisdiction they reside,
carry on business, or personally work for gain, regardless of where the defendant
resides or where the cause of action arose. This provision offers plaintiffs greater
flexibility and convenience in initiating legal proceedings to protect their trademark
rights .

Section 135 outlines the reliefs available in suits for infringement or passing off. The
court may grant injunctions (interim or permanent) to restrain the defendant from
further infringement. Additionally, the plaintiff may be awarded damages or an
account of profits, and the court can order the delivery up of infringing labels and
marks for destruction or erasure.
Criminal remedy under section 103 and 104

Defence of infringement:( against granting of damages other than nominal damages)

1. where defendant had no reasonable grounds to believe that there was a trademark
registered
2. when he found out he ceased using of such trademark
3. or when the trademark is in relation to a collective trademark.

Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel and Ors., AIR 2006, it
was held that a primafacie case of irreparable injury has been made out by the
Appellant. It may not be necessary to show more than loss of goodwill and reputation
to fulfill the condition of irreparable injury. If the first two pre-requisites are fulfilled,
irreparable loss can be presumed to have taken place.

Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories,

AIR 1965 SC 980. It was explained that "while an action for passing off is a common
law remedy being in substance an action for deceit, that is, a passing off by a person
of his own goods as those of another, that is not the gist of an action for infringement.
The action for infringement is a statutory remedy conferred on the registered
proprietor of a registered trade mark for the vindication of the 'exclusive right to the
use of the trade mark in relation to those goods'. The use by the defendant of the trade
mark of the plaintiff is not essential in an action for passing off, but is the sine qua
non in the case of an action for infringement.

The modern tort of passing off has five elements—(1) a misrepresentation; (2) made
by a trader in the course of his trade; (3) to prospective customers of his or ultimate
consumers of goods or services supplied to them; (4) which is calculated to injure
business or goodwill of another trader (in the sense that this is a reasonably
foreseeable consequence); and (5) which causes actual damage to a business or
goods of the trader by whom the action is brought or will probably do so.

Yahoo Inc v. Akash Arora- Although the word 'services' may not find place in
sections 27 and 29 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958, the expression
'services rendered' has come to be recognised for an 'action of passing off ".Thus
the law of passing off is an action under the common law which also is given
statutory recognition in the Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that passing off action
cannot be maintained against services on the ground that it could be maintained
only for goods. With the advancement of technology, services rendered on the
internet have also come to be recognised and accepted and are being given
protection to the provider of service from passing off as services rendered
by others as those of the plaintiff. In the instant case yahoo of the plaintiff and
yahoo.india of the defendant are almost similar except for the use of the suffix
"india" by the defendant. In cases where the degree of similarity of the markets is of
vital importance in an action for passing off, there is every possibility and
likelihood of confusion and suspicion being caused. When both the domain names
are considered, it becomes clear that the two being almost identical or similar in
nature, there is every possibility of a user of internet being confused and deceived
into believing that both the domain names belong to one common source and
connection, although the two belong to two different sources.

Unconventional trademarks:
1- Sound marks: yahoo registration of yodel. Graphical representation and
distinctivness along with 30 sec recording
2- Colour trademark: cadbury and colgate palmolive company v anchor health and
beauty- red white trademark achieved by colgate and said that on an overview
customer should presume it’s the brand through the color scheme. Have to show
acquired distinctiveness
3- Shape mark restricted for the shapes naturally occuring from the goods
themeselves. Cadbury v Nestle kitkat where kitkat denied shape mark as it is not
necessary customers would thinkk that the shape only pertained to kitkat.
4- Scent: unable to provide graphical representation and therefore not possible in
india.
5- Motion: nokia hands meeting
6- Packaging

Playboy Enterprises Inc v. Chuckleberry Publishing Inc, Tattilo Editrice- Since 1953,
Playboy Enterprises Inc. (“PEI”) had published its flagship magazine PLAYBOY
worldwide, amassing substantial goodwill in the mark, when in 1967 Italy’s Tattilo
Editrice launched a men’s magazine titled PLAYMEN (with Italian‐language content)
and began distributing it in the United States by 1979. PEI sued Tattilo in U.S. courts
for trademark dilution, infringement, and unfair competition, arguing that PLAYMEN
unfairly traded on PLAYBOY’s fame. In 1981, a U.S. court granted an injunction
barring Tattilo from publishing or distributing PLAYMEN in the United States. Despite
registering the domain playmen.it in Italy, Tattilo activated its website in January
1996, making PLAYMEN’s content accessible to U.S. users. Tattilo argued that the
original 1981 injunction could not have anticipated the World Wide Web and thus
did not apply to Internet distribution. The court rejected this contention, holding
that its territorial injunction extended to any online activity targeting U.S. audiences,
and ordered Tattilo to prevent U.S. access to PLAYMEN’s website. This ruling
affirmed that trademark injunctions remain enforceable against new technologies
and that foreign entities may not circumvent territorial restrictions by Internet
publication.

Appellate board;
83 Establishment of Appellate Board.
84. Composition of Appellate Board.
85. Qualifications for appointment as Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, or other
Members.
86. Term of office of Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and other Members.
87. Vice-Chairperson or senior-most Member to act as Chairperson or discharge his
functions in certain circumstances.
88. Salaries, allowances and other terms and conditions of service of Chairperson,
Vice-Chairperson and other Members. 89. Resignation and removal.
89A. Qualifications, terms and conditions of service of Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson
and member.
90.Staff of Appellate Board.
91. Appeals to Appellate Board.
92. Procedure and powers of Appellate Board.
93. Bar of jurisdiction of courts, etc. 4 SECTIONS
94. Bar to appear before Appellate Board.
95. Conditions as to making of interim orders.
96. Power of Chairperson to transfer cases from one Bench to another.
97. Procedure for application for rectification, etc., before Appellate Board.
98. Appearance of Registrar in legal proceedings.

Section 37- power to assign

Section 38- no transfer without assignment of goodwill
Section 40- no transfer if assignmemnt or transmissibility will give rights of
trademark to multiple people which will be conflicting
Section 42 – Assignments Unlinked to Business Goodwill
Normally, you can only sell or transfer a trademark if you also transfer the associated
business goodwill—that is, the reputation and customer recognition that go with the
mark. Section 42 carves out a process for the rare cases where someone wants to
assign a mark without selling the underlying business goodwill. In those situations,
the new owner (the assignee) must, within six months (or up to nine months if the
Registrar allows), ask the Registrar how to publicize the transfer and then run that
public notice in the manner and timeframe the Registrar prescribes. This gives
anyone who relies on the mark a fair chance to learn about the change of ownership.
The “Explanation” makes clear that if you assign a mark only for some of the goods
or services (and transfer the goodwill for just those lines), or if you assign rights for
exports or foreign‐only services (and transfer the export business goodwill), you’re
still treated as transferring with goodwill—so you don’t need to follow the special
advertising procedure.

Unit -3
Patent 2(1)m- the exclusive right to use or exercise an invention granted to a person
for a olimited period in consideration of disclosure of the invention.
Section 2(1)j- invention- new product or process involvig an inventive step capabale
of industrial application. Inventive step is a feature involving technical advance or
having economic significance that makes the invention not obvious.

ms biswanath prasad v hindustan metal- test of inventiveness. Has to be more than

a mere workshop improvement. Inventive step. Soemthing not obvious to a person
in field. New article has to be better or cheaper than the one before.

Section 3- inventions not patentable

1. Any invention which is frivolous or which claims anything agaisnt natural laws
2. Commercial exploitation of the invention which would be contrary to public
morarilty or cause harm to life
3. Discovery of an abstract theory or something living or non living occuring
naturally.
4. Discovery of a new advantage of a known substance which doesn’t result in
enhancement of the subsrance
5. A substance obtained by mere mixture resulting in only aggregration of the
properties of the components or the process thereof
6. Mere arrangement or rearrangement or duplication of known devices each
functioning independently of one other in a known way.
7. A methiod of agriculture or horticulture
8. Something to cure an ailment or a disease
9. Plants and animals
10. Mathametical or business method or an algorithm
11. Litreary, dramatic, musical or artistic work including cinema or television
production
12. A mere scheme or rule or method of performing mental act or method of playing
game
13. A mere presentation of information
14. Topography of integrated circuits
15. Traditional knowkledge
Section 4- inventions relating to atomic energy

Novartis Ag v UOI- Novartis AG v. Union of India (2013), the Supreme Court of India
rejected Novartis's patent application for the beta crystalline form of Imatinib
Mesylate, marketed as Gleevec, used in treating leukemia. The Court held that this
new form did not demonstrate enhanced "therapeutic efficacy" over the known
substance, as required under Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act. This provision
aims to prevent "evergreening," where minor modifications are made to extend
patent life without significant therapeutic benefits. The Court emphasized that
improvements in properties like stability or bioavailability are insufficient unless they
translate into increased therapeutic efficacy. This decision reinforced India's
commitment to making essential medicines affordable and accessible, especially in
developing countries, and set a precedent for stringent patentability standards in the
pharmaceutical sector

Procedure of filing patent:

1. File application (Section 9)
2. Specification compeltion (Section 9). Contents of specification (Section 10)
3. Amendments in specification by controller (S.15) by opposition on merits (s.25)
4. Acceptance of specificaiton (Section 11)
5. Publication of application (Section 11A). No suit for ingringement until patent
granted after 18 monhs of application or priority date whichever is earlier
6. Request for examination of application (Section 11B)
7. Anticipation (Section 12). Anticipation by prior publication (s. 13(1)a). Anticipation
by prior claim (s.13(1)b)
8. Division of application (Section 16)
9. Report of examiner
10. Either objections leading to amendments OR approval OR didviosn
11. Potential infringement
12. Oppositoin proceedings
13. Grant of patent

Farbwerke Hoechst A.G v Unichem Labs- to anticipate a patent, a prior publication

or activity must contain the whole of the invemtion impugned, all wthe features
which the particular claim attaacked is limited. It means if the prior inventors
pub;ication contains a clear description of something that would infirnge the
patentee’s claim the claim will have been proved to lack the necessity novelty

Grounds of opposition of patents

1. Wrongful obtaining (Section 25(1)a)
2. Prior publication (Section 25(1)b)
3. Prior claim (s.c)
4. Prior public knowledge or use (s.d)
5. Obviousness or lack of inventive step (s.e)
6. Claim not patentable (s.f)
7. Not clearly described in application (s.g)
8. Failure to disclose information (s.h)
9. Time barred conventiion application (s.i)

Neon Laboratories Pvt Ltd v Troikaa Pharma Limited- the Bombay High Court
addressed procedural fairness in the context of patent opposition. Troikaa Pharma
filed a patent application for an injectable diclofenac formulation, which Neon
Laboratories opposed under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970. During the
opposition proceedings, Troikaa amended its claims, but Neon contended that it was
not given an opportunity to be heard on these amended claims, thereby violating
principles of natural justice. The court emphasized that the right to oppose a patent
under Section 25(1) is not a mere formality and that opponents must be granted a
fair chance to contest amended claims. It held that if a patent applicant amends
claims after a hearing, the opponent is entitled to a fresh hearing upon request. The
court found that the Patent Office erred by granting the patent without affording
Neon an opportunity to address the amended claims, thus breaching procedural
fairness. Consequently, the court set aside the patent grant and remanded the
matter for reconsideration, reinforcing the importance of due process in patent
opposition proceedings.

Section 47- patent rights are conditional- government use and educational purposes
to pupils
Section 48- rights of patentees- exclude third parties from making, usingm selling or
importing those products without his consent in india and where that patent is
process then prevent such parties to use that process or act of using that process.
1. right to expolit (Section 48)
2. right to license (Section 70)
3. Right to assign( Section 70)
4. Right to surrender the patent (Section 63)
5. Right to sue

Section 64- Revocation of patent

Earlier Priority: The claimed invention was already covered by a valid claim in
another Indian patent with an earlier priority date.

2. Lack of Entitlement: The patentee was not entitled to apply for the patent.
3. Wrongful Procurement: The patent was obtained in violation of another person’s
rights.
4. Non-Patentable Subject Matter: The claim does not constitute an “invention”
(e.g. excluded subject matter).
5. Lack of Novelty: The invention was publicly known or used in India or published
anywhere before the priority date.
6. Obviousness: The invention lacks an inventive step, being obvious in light of prior
knowledge or publications.
7. Non-Usefulness: The invention is not useful.
8. Insufficient Disclosure: The specification fails to disclose the invention or best
method sufficiently for a person skilled in the art to reproduce it.
9. Unclear or Unsupported Claims: Claims are not clearly defined or are not fairly
based on the specification’s disclosure.
10. False Suggestion or Representation: The patent was procured on false
statements.
11. Anticipation by Traditional Knowledge: The invention was anticipated by local or
indigenous knowledge.
12. Secret Prior Use: The invention was secretly used in India before the priority
date.
13. Non-Disclosure of Information: Failure to disclose or misrepresentation of
required information (e.g. under Section 8).
14. Secrecy Direction/Foreign Filing Breach: Contravention of secrecy orders or
unauthorized foreign patent filings.
15. Fraudulent Amendments: Amendments to the specification obtained by
fraud.Missing Source of Biological Material: The specification fails to disclose, or
wrongly states, the source or geographical origin of biological material used.

Maj. (Retd.) Sukesh Behl & Anr. v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (2013)
In this case, Philips sued for infringement of its DVD-related patent. The defendants
countered with a revocation plea under Section 64(1)(m), alleging Philips failed to
disclose details of corresponding foreign patent applications as mandated by Section
8. The Delhi High Court acknowledged that while compliance with Section 8 is
mandatory, revocation under Section 64 is discretionary. The court emphasized that
revocation would ensue only if the non-disclosure was deliberate or willful. Since
there was no evidence of intentional concealment by Philips, the court declined to
revoke the patent. This case clarified that inadvertent non-compliance with Section 8
does not automatically lead to revocation under Section 64(1)

Natural Remedies Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Herbs Research & Supply Co. Ltd. (2011)
Natural Remedies held a patent for a herbal liver tonic named Zigbir. Indian Herbs
challenged the patent's validity, arguing it lacked novelty and inventive step, as the
formulation comprised commonly known herbs with established medicinal
properties. The Karnataka High Court found that the combination of herbs did not
demonstrate any synergistic effect or inventive merit beyond traditional knowledge.
Consequently, the court revoked the patent under Section 64(1)(b), (e), (f), and (h),
citing wrongful grant, lack of novelty, obviousness, and insufficient disclosure. This
decision underscored the necessity for genuine innovation and adequate disclosure
in patent applications.

Macdonald v Fraser (Infringement)- pith and marrow doctrine- F patended an

apparatus for smoke detection changed just one air pump rest was same Held that
F’s appaaratus consisted of same combinations as M’s with slight modifications ans
served same ourpose therefore there was infringement.

F.Hoffmann La Roche v Cipla Ltd (Infringement)- Roche held an Indian patent (IN
196774) for Erlotinib Hydrochloride, marketed as Tarceva, a drug used in cancer
treatment. In January 2008, Cipla announced plans to launch a generic version named
Erlocip, priced significantly lower than Tarceva. Roche filed a suit seeking an interim
injunction to restrain Cipla from manufacturing and selling Erlocip, alleging patent
infringement.Cipla contested the validity of Roche's patent, arguing that Erlotinib was
a known compound and lacked enhanced efficacy, invoking Section 3(d) of the
Patents Act. The Delhi High Court considered the balance of convenience and public
interest, noting the life-saving nature of the drug and its affordability. The court
observed that granting an injunction would adversely affect public access to essential
medication, especially given the price disparity. It was highlighted that Roche's patent
covered a mixture of Polymorphs A and B, whereas Cipla's product comprised only
Polymorph B. Roche's application for a patent specifically on Polymorph B had been
previously rejected under Section 3(d) for lacking enhanced therapeutic efficacy.
Consequently, the court denied the interim injunction, allowing Cipla to continue
marketing Erlocip during the pendency of the suit. This case underscored the
importance of public interest in patent enforcement and set a precedent for
interpreting Section 3(d) concerning incremental pharmaceutical innovations

Section 107- defences for infringement (Same grounds as revocation)

Biswanth Prasad v H.M Industries- no presumption in favour of validity of patents.

The grant and sealing of the patent does not guarantee validity of patent.

Parallel Importation: Section 107A(b) permits the importation of patented products

from a person who is duly authorized under the law to produce and sell or distribute
the product. This means that importing genuine patented products from authorized
sellers abroad does not infringe Indian patent rights.
bSection 84- compulosy license
Section 85- controller may remove patent after 2 years of compulsory licensing if he
Is satisified that it wasn’t enough for pubic interest
Section 86- controller may delay license of coumpsory licensing
Section 87- patent holder can oppose application for compulsory license

Bayer Corporation v Natco Pharma Ltd- compulosry icense case in case of

overpriced drug. Compulosry license allowed.

Unit -4- section 2(d), 22, 4, 19

Section 2(d)- meaning of design- features, shape, configuration, patternm ornament,
composition of lines, in 2D or 3D applied to any aeticle by an industrial process can
be manual or chemcical and is to be judged by eyes but doesn’t include any
construction.
Srction 2(a)- article- article of manufacture and any substance, artificial, natural or
partly artifiical and capable of being sold seperately

Escorts construction equipment v action construction equipment (appeals to the

eye requirement of design)- case of alleged copyinh of the pick-n-carry hyrdaulic
cranes design. Held that cant be resgistered in designs act as it a constructed object
and main function of act is to conserve design and not function so whil it is visible
with the eyes its main purpose is the function and not the design.

Corning incorporated usa v raj kumar Garg- difference between trademark and
design. Example of toothbrush

Bharat glass tube ltd v gopal glass works- design in abstract cant be registered. It
needs to be associated to an article. Also needs to be original and should waarant
use of intelluctual activity and not just a minute alteration in an existing design. Need
not be new if novelty can be achieved by redesigning. It should not be new
arrangement of old articles.

Joginder singh v tebu enterprise (publication of design)- tricycle design achoeved

through moulding like duck. Held that plaintiffs use of design was justified since the
respondent had used the desing prior to registration too. if goods imported from
abroad wihtout disclosure ad goods of such design not freely available in India then
there is no publication.

Case: Samsonite Corporation v. Vijay Sales:

Facts: Samsonite made suitcases and bags with unique and stylish designs sold under
the trademark “SAMSONITE.” They were advertised widely, and the company held
technical know-how and created new product designs in its research facilities.
Defendant’s Argument: The defendant said the design features were already in the
public domain and thus could only be protected under the Designs Act, not
copyright.
Court's Decision: The court ruled that the drawings made by Samsonite were only
designs—instructions for making products—and thus not eligible for copyright once
mass-produced. The intention behind the drawings—to manufacture a product—
was key. Since these were designs capable of registration, copyright did not apply
due to Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act.
Key Principle: If a drawing or artistic work is intended to be used as a design for
manufacturing, it must be registered under the Designs Act. Otherwise, copyright
protection is lost if the article is reproduced more than 50 times.

Section 4- registration of design-

1. Must be new or orginal
2. Must not be previously published
3. Must be significantally distringuishable from known designs or such any
combination
4. Must not contain scandulous or obsence matter

Section 15- right conferred by registration- right to apply ther design to any article,
publish or expose, right to import for purposes of sale

Section 19- grounds of cancellation

1. Design had been previouslt registered
2. Previously published
3. Its not new or orginnal
4. Design isnt registrable
5. Its not defined under section 2(d)

Section 22- piracy of registered design

Calico prtinters association v d.n mukherjee- facts necessary to provoe piracy of

design
1. Copyright in design exists
2. Design is fraudulent or obvious imitation
3. Design or imitation has been applied without license
4. Imitation hhas been made with the purtpose of sale
5. The article to which design applied is within the scope of description of class of
design

· Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. v. Gopal Glass Works Ltd. (2008): The issue was
whether a registered design embossed using imported rollers was truly "new or
original" under Section 4 of the Designs Act, 2000. The Controller rejected the
design, citing prior publication abroad. However, the Calcutta High Court and
Supreme Court held that prior registration abroad alone does not invalidate Indian
registration unless the design was applied to the same article and publicly available.
The Court emphasized that novelty must be judged by tangible application and visual
appeal on the same type of article.

· · Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. v. Wyeth Ltd. (2010): Reckitt alleged design
infringement of an S-shaped spatula. Wyeth defended by arguing the design was
already registered abroad, hence not new under Section 4. The Delhi High Court held
that prior foreign registration can be a valid defence in infringement proceedings if
the design was publicly disclosed. It clarified that once a design is in the public
domain (including via foreign registration), it loses novelty unless protected under
Section 44 within the prescribed period. The decision challenged earlier contrary
rulings and emphasized harmonizing Sections 4, 16, and 44 of the Designs Act, 2000.