BRB Legal

IP Case Digest · Designs Act s.22(3)

Section 22(3), Designs Act: case law

3 judgments of the Bombay High Court and the Delhi High Court applying Designs Act s.22(3), from 2025–2026, each with a headnote by BRB Legal.

3judgments
2courts
2025–2026years

Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v. Stove Kraft Limited, COMMERCIAL (IP) SUIT NO. 710 OF 2025

Bombay High Court · Dismissed

Interim application dismissed in a registered design action over ceiling fans. Judged through the eye of the purchaser, no obvious similarity appeared: the curved blade and the Z shaped shank claimed as distinctive of the suit fan were absent from the impugned fan, and when both fans were produced in court no similarity was visible that would constitute piracy. The passing off claim failed separately because the chartered accountant's certificate relied on for goodwill covered six models or brands rather than the suit fan alone, so no goodwill or distinctiveness in the particular get up was established.

Aqualite Industries Private Ltd v. Relaxo Footwears Limited, FAO(OS)(IPD) 1/2022

Delhi High Court · Dismissed

Appeal dismissed and an injunction upheld in a registered design action over hawai slippers. Although the Division Bench noted that the Single Judge had not given cogent reasons for finding the suit designs novel, it did not treat that as a ground to interfere. Instead it examined the suit designs, the prior art documents and, for two of them, the footwear itself, and satisfied itself that there was novelty in the crenellation-like side ridges on the vertical outer surface as against the ridges on the prior art footwear. Since the same prior art founded the claim of prior publication, the designs were not vulnerable on that ground either, and with the defendant's footwear identical in shape and configuration, the injunction was correctly granted.

Ms Lalita Goyal Proprietor Of Ms Baby Wheels India v. Sumit Garg, FAO (COMM) 125/2025 and CM APPL. 29277/2025

Delhi High Court · Set aside

Appeal allowed on a jurisdictional point of real practical importance in design litigation. Where a defendant pleads invalidity of the registered design in its written statement, section 22(4) requires the suit to be transferred to the High Court for decision, and the Court held that the Commercial Court could not avoid that mandate by regarding the defence as vague or insubstantial.

Other provisions of the Designs Act

All 19 judgments on the Designs Act, 2000 Search the IP Case Digest