Page 29 - A&A Patents&Design Rewind-2016
P. 29
“LID” AND “CONTAINER” BOTH QUALIFY AS AN
ARTICLE
An appeal was filed by Yash Plastomet Pvt. number of containers. It was further observed that
Ltd. (the appellant) from an order of the the Appellant failed to highlight any one container
Controller of Patents and Designs whereby lid in particular to show prior publication of
the application of the Appellant for cancellation of design 187706. Further, the Appellant had failed
the Respondent’s design No. 187706 for “Container to produce before the Controller and the Court,
lid” registered under Class 09-03 was dismissed. design numbers 177764 and 180657. However, the
Controller had the opportunity to look at design
The Appellant contended that the design application numbers 177764 and 180657 and it is only after
looking at these designs vis-à-vis design number
of the Respondent allowed on 2nd January, 2002, 187706 that the Controller refused cancellation of
design number 187706. Since the design numbers
It was held that the did not meet the 177764 and 180657 were not produced in the
adjudicating authority criteria defined by appeal, the Court found no reason to differ with
the Designs Act for the Controller of Patents.
has considered Class registration of a design. It was further observed that design number 187706
was registered in respect of novelty in shape and
09-03 of the 2000 Act The design registered configuration alone and not in respect of its action
mechanism. Therefore, the Appellant’s submission
and thereafter, held that by the Respondent that the design has a mere mechanical function was
unfounded.
“container lid” is an was not only published
“article” in itself and not a in October 1997 in It was held that the adjudicating authority has
part of an “article”. Andhra Pradesh Times considered Class 09-03 of the 2000 Act and
but had also been thereafter, held that “container lid” is an “article”
in itself and not a part of an “article”. Further, no
registered earlier under design Nos. 177764 and allegation of bias or failure to grant a hearing to the
Appellant by the Controller of Patents was raised.
180657 which relate to a container. The design was In light of the above the appeal was dismissed.
also patented in the U.S.A in March 1998. Since The order can be accessed at:-
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/53627838/
registered design No. 187706 was neither new
nor original, it was not a design as defined under
Section 2(d) of the 2000 Act. It was further argued
that the registered design was functional and had no
independent utility nor could it be sold separately.
The Respondent tried to highlight the difference
in registered design number 187706 and the
previously registered design numbers 177764 and
180657, as also the design patented in the U.S.A.
The Court observed the lack of clarity of the
Andhra Pradesh Times publication which shows a
Patents & Design | 29
