BHARAT GLASS TUBE LIMITED versus GOPAL GLASS WORKS LIMITED

Citation: [2008] 7 S.C.R. 397 · Decided: 01-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. MATHUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2008] 7 S.C.R. 397 
,,;.._ 
BHARAT GLASS TUBE LIMITED 
A 
... 
v. 
GOPAL GLASS WORKS LIMITED 
(Civil Appeal No. 3185 of 2008) 
MAY 1, 2008 
B 
.. 
-""' 
(A.K. MATHUR AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.) 
Designs Act, 2000: 
s. 2(d),2(g), 4, 11 rlw r.11 and Form-1 of Designs Rules, c 
2001 - 'Design' - Registration of - Purpose of - HELD: Is 
protection of intellectual property right of new and original 
design and to benefit the person for his research and labour 
put in by him to evolve the new and original design - The 
design which is sought to be registered is to be applied to 
finished article which may be judged solely by eye appeal -
D 
Name of article on which design is sought to be transcripted 
has to be mentioned at the time of registration - Both the things 
are required to be together, the design and article on which 
design is sought to be applied - Design Rules, 2001 - r.11 rl 
w Form 1 - Intellectual Property - Copy Right. 
E 
s.20) - 'Proprietor' - Connotation of 
s. 4 - Expression "new or original" - HELD: Means that 
design which has been registered has been invented for the 
) 
first time and it has not been published anywhere nor made 
F 
known to the public. 
s. 19 r/w r29 of Design Rules, 2001 - Cancellation of 
Registration - Design registered in India on glass sheet -
HELD: Burden is on complainant to show that design which 
has been registered in India was not original or new - This G 
burden was not discharged - No evidence was produced that 
'-I 
design was reproduced on glass sheet or it was prior registered 
as such in India or any part of the World.- Order of Assistant 
Controller canceling registration was rightly set aside by the 
397 
H 
398 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 7 S.C.R. 
A High Court - Design Rules, 2001 - r.29. 
s. 37 - Affidavit evidence - Admissibility of - Evidence. 
Words and Phrases: 
Expressions 'design', 'eye appeal', 'new and original' and 
8 'proprietor' - Connotation of in the context of Designs Act, 2000. 
The 
respondent was in the business of 
manufacturing and marketing of figured and wired glass 
sheets since 1981. It claimed to be the originator of new 
c and original industrial designs applied by mechanical 
process to glass sheets. On an application by the 
respondent u/s 51 of the Designs Act, 2000, the design of 
the respondent was registered on 5.11.2002 as Design no. 
190336, and it was to remain valid for a period of ten years 
0 from the date of its registration. The respondent marketed 
the glass sheets of the said design under the name of 
'Diamond Square'. The respondent issued a notice on 
21.5.2003 cautioning other manufacturers from infringing 
its copyright of the said registered design. According to 
the respondent, as in the meanwhile the appellant and its 
E associate started imitating the said registered design, it 
filed Civil Suit No. 1 of 2004 against the appellant, and 
obtained a restraint order. 
The appellant in turn filed an application u/s 19 of 
F the Act before the Controller of Patents and Designs for 
cancellation of respondent's registration of Design No. 
190336 mainly on the ground that the design had already 
been previously published in India and abroad and thus 
it was not a new or original one. The appellant relied on a 
G catalqgue of the German Company which had developed 
Design No. 2960-9010 in the year 1992, and a document 
downloaded from the official website of the Patent Office 
of United Kingdom indicating registration of the design. 
The stand of the respondent was that the German 
H Company was engaged in the manufacture of engraving 
,, 
BHARAT GLASS TUBE LIMITED v. GOPAL GLASS 
399 
,;._ 
WORKS LIMITED 
rollers only and it never manufactured engraved glass A 
... 
sheets; that the said German Company had sold the 
embossing rollers covered by Design No. 2960-9010 .to 
the respondents on a condition that all user rights in India 
'\-
under l~dian laws would vest exclusively in the 
~ 
. respondent for at least five years; and that the Company B 
which had its design registered in United Kingdom never 
manufactured glass sheets. The Assistant Controller of 
the Patents and Designs, accepted the case of the 
appellant and set aside the registration of the respondent. 
The appeal of the respondent was allowed by the High c 
Court giving rise to the instant appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court. 
HELD: 1.1 The sole purpose of the Designs Act,2000 
).. 
is protection of the intellectual property right of the original D

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.