{"id":22270,"date":"2026-04-18T07:47:15","date_gmt":"2026-04-18T07:47:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=22270"},"modified":"2026-04-18T07:50:55","modified_gmt":"2026-04-18T07:50:55","slug":"standard-operating-procedure-sop-for-investigation-of-offences-designs-act-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/standard-operating-procedure-sop-for-investigation-of-offences-designs-act-2000\/","title":{"rendered":"Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Investigation of Offences under the Designs Act, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
    \n
  1. Introduction<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The Designs Act, 2000, protects the visual design of objects that are not purely utilitarian. Unlike patents (which protect functionality) or copyright (which protects artistic expression), design protection focuses on the shape, configuration, pattern, ornament, or composition of lines or colours<\/strong> applied to any article.<\/p>\n

    Under the Designs Act, 2000, \u201cdesign\u201d is defined in Section 2(d) as only the features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament, or composition of lines or colours applied to any article (whether in two-dimensional, three-dimensional, or both forms) by any industrial process or means (manual, mechanical, chemical, separate or combined), which in the finished article appeal to and are judged solely by the eye.<\/p>\n

    Criminal enforcement under the Designs Act is primarily governed by Section 22<\/strong> (Piracy of Registered Design). While the Act is largely civil in nature, investigative agencies must follow a strict procedural framework to ensure that evidence of piracy is legally admissible and that the rights of the registered proprietor are upheld.<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Pre-Investigation: Determining Jurisdiction and Validity<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Before initiating formal investigative steps, the Investigating Officer (I.O.) must verify the following:<\/p>\n

        \n
      • Registration Status:<\/strong> A design must be registered under the Act to enjoy protection. The I.O. must obtain a certified copy of the Certificate of Registration<\/strong> from the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks.<\/li>\n
      • Subsistence of Copyright:<\/strong> Protection lasts for 10 years<\/strong>, extendable by an additional 5 years<\/strong>. The I.O. must ensure the design has not entered the public domain.<\/li>\n
      • Territorial Jurisdiction:<\/strong> The offence is deemed to occur where the infringing goods are manufactured, stored, or sold.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
          \n
        1. Filing and Registration of Complaint<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          Offences under the Designs Act are generally non-cognizable unless they involve elements of fraud or forgery under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

            \n
          • Receipt of Complaint:<\/strong> The complaint should ideally be filed by the registered proprietor or their authorized agent.<\/li>\n
          • Verification of Documents:<\/strong>\n
              \n
            • Certified copy of the Registered Design.<\/li>\n
            • Representation of the design (drawings\/photographs) attached to the registration.<\/li>\n
            • Proof of the complainant\u2019s commercial use of the design.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
            • Entry in General Diary (GD):<\/strong> Upon receipt, a GD entry is made. If a court order under Section 175(3) of the BNSS<\/strong> is received, an FIR is registered.<\/li>\n
            • Cognizable and Non-Bailable Offences under the Designs Act, 2000:<\/strong> No section of the Designs Act, 2000 makes any offence cognizable and non-bailable. The Act is primarily civil in nature and provides remedies for piracy of registered designs only under Section 22, which allows the registered proprietor to recover monetary penalties (up to \u20b925,000 per contravention, subject to a maximum of \u20b950,000 per design) as a contract debt or to file a suit for damages and injunction before the District Judge.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

              The Act does not prescribe any punishment of imprisonment and contains no provision classifying any contravention as a criminal offence that is cognizable (police arrest without warrant) or non-bailable. In practice, any criminal complaint filed in design piracy cases is treated as non-cognizable, and settlements, if any, usually require quashing by the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

                \n
              1. Elements of the Offence (Section 22)<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                To build a successful case, the investigation must prove that the accused:<\/p>\n

                  \n
                • For the purpose of sale, applied the registered design (or any fraudulent or obvious imitation thereof) to any article in the class of goods in which the design is registered.<\/li>\n
                • Imported such articles for sale without the consent of the registered proprietor.<\/li>\n
                • Published or exposed for sale such articles knowing that the design had been applied without consent.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
                    \n
                  1. Search and Seizure Protocol<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                    Search and seizure are the most critical phases of a design piracy investigation.<\/p>\n

                    5.1 Preparation for Raid<\/strong><\/p>\n

                      \n
                    • Search Warrant:<\/strong> Obtain a search warrant from the Jurisdictional Magistrate. In urgent cases where evidence might be destroyed, the I.O. may proceed under emergent provisions, documenting the “Grounds of Belief” in the Case Diary.<\/li>\n
                    • Expert Assistance:<\/strong> It is advisable to have a person technically proficient in the specific industry or a representative of the registered proprietor present to identify infringing articles.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                      5.2 Execution of Search<\/strong><\/p>\n

                        \n
                      • Presence of Witnesses:<\/strong> Ensure the presence of at least two independent respectable inhabitants of the locality (Panch Witnesses<\/strong>).<\/li>\n
                      • Identification of Goods:<\/strong> Compare the suspect goods with the registered design. Note the “obvious” or “fraudulent” imitations.<\/li>\n
                      • Seizure List:<\/strong> Prepare a detailed inventory of:\n
                          \n
                        • Finished infringing products.<\/li>\n
                        • Semi-finished goods.<\/li>\n
                        • Moulds, dyes, or plates<\/strong> used to apply the design (these are primary evidence of manufacture).<\/li>\n
                        • Invoices, ledgers, and shipping documents.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                          5.3 Digital Evidence<\/strong><\/p>\n

                          If the design was applied using automated machinery or 3D printing:<\/p>\n

                            \n
                          • Seize CPU\/Hard drives containing the CAD (Computer-Aided Design) files.<\/li>\n
                          • Follow the “Chain of Custody” and ensure certificates under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA)<\/strong> are obtained.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                            \u00a06. <\/strong>Forensic Examination and Comparison<\/strong><\/p>\n

                            The “Eye Test” is the legal standard in design cases. The design is judged solely by the eye.<\/p>\n

                              \n
                            • Physical Comparison:<\/strong> Place the original article and the seized article side-by-side. Some experts suggest that the comparison should be made between the infringing article<\/strong> and the Representation Sheet<\/strong> (the drawings in the certificate), not<\/em> necessarily between the two physical products, as the certificate defines the scope of the right.<\/li>\n
                            • Point of Novelty:<\/strong> Identify the specific “novel” features mentioned in the registration certificate.<\/li>\n
                            • Expert Opinion:<\/strong> Send the samples to a forensic science laboratory or a government-approved technical institute to determine if the similarities constitute a “fraudulent or obvious imitation.”<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
                                \n
                              1. Key Institutions<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                In India, and specifically in Kolkata<\/strong>, the forensic examination and comparison of designs\u2014the “Eye Test”\u2014is handled by a combination of statutory bodies, government laboratories, and specialized technical institutes.<\/p>\n

                                Since the legal standard for design infringement revolves around “fraudulent or obvious imitation,” the expert opinion typically bridges the gap between technical novelty and visual similarity.<\/p>\n

                                A. Key Institutions in Kolkata<\/strong><\/p>\n

                                Kolkata is a primary hub for intellectual property in India, housing the country’s central administration for designs.<\/p>\n

                                  \n
                                • The Patent & Design Office (Boudhik Sampada Bhawan, Salt Lake): <\/strong>This is the headquarters for Design Administration in India<\/strong>. While they primarily handle registration, they are the ultimate authority on the “Point of Novelty”<\/strong> as mentioned in the registration certificate. In litigation, the Controller of Designs can be called upon or their certified records used to establish what specific features were granted protection.<\/li>\n
                                • Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Kolkata: <\/strong>Located in Park Circus (with a major campus in New Town), CFSL Kolkata is one of the premier forensic labs under the Directorate of Forensic Science Services (DFSS). While they are well-known for ballistics and biology, their Questioned Documents<\/strong> and Physics<\/strong> divisions often handle physical comparisons and “forensic engineering” to determine structural and aesthetic imitations in industrial products.<\/li>\n
                                • Patent Information Centre (PIC), West Bengal: <\/strong>Operated under the State Council of Science & Technology (Salt Lake), they provide technical assistance in identifying “prior art” and novelty. They are often the first point of contact for government-approved technical opinions before a matter reaches formal litigation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                                  B. National Institutes for “Expert Opinion”<\/strong><\/p>\n

                                  When a court or police agency requires a “government-approved technical institute” to judge a design, the following are frequently cited:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
                                  Institute Type<\/strong><\/td>\nExample Institutions<\/strong><\/td>\nRole in Design Cases<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                                  Design Excellence<\/strong><\/td>\nNational Institute of Design (NID)<\/strong> (Ahmedabad\/Kolkata)<\/td>\nExperts from NID are often appointed as “Court Commissioners” to provide an expert eye on aesthetic novelty.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                                  Technical\/Engineering<\/strong><\/td>\nIndian Institutes of Technology (IITs)<\/strong><\/td>\nSpecifically for industrial designs where functionality and form are closely linked.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                                  Intellectual Property<\/strong><\/td>\nRGNIIPM, Nagpur<\/strong><\/td>\nThe Rajiv Gandhi National Institute of Intellectual Property Management provides the training and technical framework for these comparisons.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

                                  C. Executing the “Eye Test” Forensically<\/strong><\/p>\n

                                  In the context of your work, the following workflow is typically followed by these institutes:<\/p>\n

                                    \n
                                  • Visual Side-by-Side (The “Eye Test”):<\/strong> The examiner ignores minor technical differences and focuses on whether the “overall impression” of the seized article is substantially the same as the registered design.<\/li>\n
                                  • Comparison with the “Representation Sheet”:<\/strong> The institute compares the seized article against the specific drawings or photos (Representation Sheets) filed at the Kolkata Design Office.<\/li>\n
                                  • Determining Imitation:<\/strong> The expert assesses if the changes are “merely trade variations” (common in the industry) or if they are strategic attempts to copy the protected “novel” features.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                                    Summary of Contact for Kolkata<\/strong><\/p>\n

                                    For formal forensic comparison, the CFSL Kolkata<\/strong> (under MHA) is the primary criminal forensic route. For civil or technical novelty assessment, the Patent & Design Office<\/strong> in Sector V, Salt Lake, remains the nodal authority for all design-related matters in India.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

                                      \n
                                    1. Examination of Witnesses<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                      The I.O. must record statements under Section 180 of the BNSS<\/strong>:<\/p>\n

                                        \n
                                      • The Complainant:<\/strong> Regarding the creation of the design and the loss caused by piracy.<\/li>\n
                                      • The Accused:<\/strong> Regarding the source of the design and the duration of production.<\/li>\n
                                      • The Witnesses to Search:<\/strong> To corroborate the recovery of goods.<\/li>\n
                                      • Distributors\/Retailers:<\/strong> To establish the “knowledge” of the infringing nature of the goods.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
                                          \n
                                        1. Financial Investigation<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                          Piracy is often motivated by illicit profit. The I.O. should:<\/p>\n

                                            \n
                                          • Analyze bank statements of the accused to trace the proceeds of the sale.<\/li>\n
                                          • Identify the scale of production to assist the court in determining damages\/penalties.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
                                              \n
                                            1. Documentation and Charge Sheet<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                              The final report (Charge Sheet) must be comprehensive and include:<\/p>\n

                                                \n
                                              • Chronology of Events:<\/strong> From the discovery of piracy to the final seizure.<\/li>\n
                                              • Comparative Table:<\/strong> A visual or descriptive table highlighting similarities between the registered design and the seized article.<\/li>\n
                                              • Legal Certificates:<\/strong> All necessary certificates for digital evidence and certified copies from the Trademarks\/Designs Registry.<\/li>\n
                                              • Indictment:<\/strong> Clearly stating the contravention of Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000, along with relevant sections of the BNS (e.g., Cheating or Forgery if applicable).\u00a0<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
                                                  \n
                                                1. Summary of Key Do\u2019s and Don\u2019ts for Investigating Officers<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
                                                  Do\u2019s<\/strong><\/td>\nDon\u2019ts<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                                                  Verify the validity of the design registration before the raid.<\/td>\nDo not seize goods that belong to a different class than the registered design.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                                                  Seize the moulds and dyes used for production.<\/td>\nDo not conduct a search without independent witnesses.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                                                  Use high-resolution photography for all seized articles.<\/td>\nDo not rely solely on the complainant’s statement; seek expert opinion.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                                                  Ensure the “Chain of Custody” for all physical and digital evidence.<\/td>\nDo not ignore the ‘Statement of Novelty’. <\/em>Sometimes a design is only registered for the “ornamentation” and not the “shape.” Seizing a product based on shape when only the pattern is protected could lead to legal liability for the officer.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
                                                    \n
                                                  1. Conclusion<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                    Investigation under the Designs Act requires a blend of traditional policing and an understanding of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). The focus must remain on the visual identity<\/strong> of the product. By strictly adhering to the procedural requirements of the BNSS and the evidentiary standards of the BSA, the Investigating Officer can ensure that intellectual property theft is curtailed and the integrity of industrial innovation is protected.<\/p>\n

                                                    \u00a0<\/strong>ANNEXURE<\/strong><\/p>\n

                                                    Compounding of Offences<\/strong><\/p>\n

                                                    The Designs Act, 2000 does not contain any provision for compounding of offences, making offences under the Act technically non-compoundable.<\/p>\n

                                                    Unlike some other IP laws, the Act primarily provides civil remedies such as injunctions and damages for piracy of registered designs under Section 22. While it allows recovery of monetary penalties as a debt to the registered proprietor, it lacks any mechanism for recording settlements as compounding before a Magistrate.<\/p>\n

                                                    In practice, criminal proceedings, if initiated, are usually quashed by the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS on the basis of a mutual compromise between the parties.<\/p>\n

                                                    International Scenario on Industrial Designs Protection<\/strong><\/p>\n

                                                    Internationally, the protection of industrial designs is primarily governed by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1883), which mandates that member countries provide protection for industrial designs without forfeiture due to non-working or importation of corresponding articles, and grants a six-month right of priority for filings.<\/p>\n

                                                    The cornerstone of the global system is the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs (1925), administered by WIPO, particularly its Geneva Act (1999). The Hague System allows applicants to obtain protection for up to 100 designs in 99 countries (covering 82 contracting parties, including the EU, US, China, Japan, South Korea, and others) through a single international application filed in one language with one set of fees, significantly reducing costs and administrative burden.<\/p>\n

                                                    Protection is generally for a minimum of 15 years (renewable), with individual examination and refusal possible by designated countries. In contrast to India\u2019s Designs Act, 2000, which follows a national registration route and is not yet part of the Hague System, many jurisdictions offer streamlined international filing, unregistered design rights (e.g., short-term protection in the EU), and broader coverage including graphical user interfaces in some countries.<\/p>\n

                                                    India, as a member of the Paris Convention and a signatory to the Locarno Classification, uses the system for verifying the \u2018Class of Goods\u2019 as outlined in the SOP. While India can claim priority under the Convention, it currently lacks direct access to the Hague route. Proposals to accede to the Hague System and align with the Design Law Treaty are under active consideration to harmonize national design protection with global standards.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                                                    Introduction The Designs Act, 2000, protects the visual design of objects that are not purely utilitarian. Unlike patents (which protect functionality) or copyright (which protects artistic expression), design protection focuses on the shape, configuration, pattern, ornament, or composition of lines or colours applied to any article. Under the Designs Act, 2000, \u201cdesign\u201d is defined in<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":49,"featured_media":22269,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[5149,28],"class_list":{"0":"post-22270","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-intellectual-property","8":"tag-intellectual-property","9":"tag-top-news"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/DESIGNS-ACT-SOP.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22270","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/49"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22270"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22270\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22294,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22270\/revisions\/22294"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/22269"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22270"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22270"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22270"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}