Intellectual
Property Rights Cases: DESIGN CASES
1.
Officine Lovato SPA vs Pravinbhai Jagjivandas Mehta
2006 (32) PTC 569 (CP&D)
2. Tractors and farm Equipment
Pvt Ltd vs Green Field Farm Eqipments Pvt Ltd
2006(32) PTC 343 (Mad)
3. A.C Footwear Co. &
Anr vs Deiem (India) Pvt Ltd & Anr
2006 (32) PTC 91 (Del)
TOP
1. Officine
Lovato SPA vs Pravinbhai Jagjivandas Mehta
2006 (32) PTC 569 (CP&D)
Facts:
The design of the “Solenoid Vavle” was registered
in the name of the respondent; the applicant filed an
application for cancellation of the registration on
the following grounds that (a) it has been published
in India and other countries before its registration
(b) it is not original. The applicant alleges that they
were using the design in question since 1997. The applicant
also stated that the design being strikingly similar
to the design they have been using is liable for cancellation
under section 19 of the Act. They also stated that there
had been prior publication of the same by them. The
respondent contended that since the prior publication
had not been applied to any article hence it should
not be considered.
Court held:
That on comparison of the two designs they appeared
to be similar, hence not original and on this pretext
the applicants’ plea was allowed and the respondents’
registration was cancelled with costs.
TOP
2. Tractors
and farm Equipment Pvt Ltd vs Green Field Farm Eqipments
Pvt Ltd 2006(32) PTC 343 (Mad)
Facts:
The plaintiff carries on business in the field of tractors
Farm Equipments for many decades and also has a separate
department for R & D, wherein they regularly invent
new tractor models. Defendant no. 2 was in employment
with the plaintiff. The plaintiff had invented two models
of tractors that the plaintiff had exclusive copyright
to. The defendant had unrestricted access to the details
of techniques/ specifications relating to the said models.
The plaintiff had established that they were the owners
of the copyright, and the defendants were unable to
adduce any evidence to show the same.
Court held:
That the design of the two tractors has been registered
under the Designs Act and they are exactly the same
except the name is different. The defendant would not
only be liable for the infringement but also for breach
of confidentiality and the plaintiff is entitled to
interim injunction against the defendants for manufacturing
the tractors of similar specifications.
TOP
3.
A.C Footwear Co. & Anr vs Deiem (India) Pvt Ltd
& Anr
2006 (32) PTC 91 (Del)
Facts:
The dispute is with regard to the design of the sole
of the shoe registered by the Calcutta Controller of
Patents &Designs. The petitioner rose two issues
in this matter firstly that the design has been previously
used in India and secondly that the design is not original.
The design of the respondents was valid from 1993 and
that of the previous user was valid from 1992.
Court held:
On a comparison of the soles of the shoes it appeared
to the court that the V groove in both the shoes along
with the circular groove and the dots near the heal
were similar. In view of the facts and circumstance
the court held the respondents design registration to
be cancelled.
TOP
|
QUICK LINKS
LEGAL UPDATES