{"id":23963,"date":"2026-05-14T08:12:33","date_gmt":"2026-05-14T08:12:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=23963"},"modified":"2026-05-14T08:15:18","modified_gmt":"2026-05-14T08:15:18","slug":"novelty-and-originality-of-design-cannot-be-assessed-merely-through-superficial-visual-comparison","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/novelty-and-originality-of-design-cannot-be-assessed-merely-through-superficial-visual-comparison\/","title":{"rendered":"Novelty and originality of Design cannot be assessed merely through superficial visual comparison"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"introduction\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The case revolved around the validity of a registered design relating to TMT construction rods bearing a \u201cdouble XX-rib&#8221; surface pattern. The dispute raised a common but significant issue in industrial design law: whether a design which is already available in the market or substantially similar to existing designs can continue to enjoy statutory monopoly protection merely because it has been registered.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_83 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/novelty-and-originality-of-design-cannot-be-assessed-merely-through-superficial-visual-comparison\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/novelty-and-originality-of-design-cannot-be-assessed-merely-through-superficial-visual-comparison\/#Factual_and_Procedural_Background\" >Factual and Procedural Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/novelty-and-originality-of-design-cannot-be-assessed-merely-through-superficial-visual-comparison\/#Dispute_Before_the_Court\" >Dispute Before the Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/novelty-and-originality-of-design-cannot-be-assessed-merely-through-superficial-visual-comparison\/#Documents_Relied_Upon_by_the_Appellant\" >Documents Relied Upon by the Appellant<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/novelty-and-originality-of-design-cannot-be-assessed-merely-through-superficial-visual-comparison\/#Respondents_Contentions\" >Respondent\u2019s Contentions<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/novelty-and-originality-of-design-cannot-be-assessed-merely-through-superficial-visual-comparison\/#Key_Legal_Issues\" >Key Legal Issues<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/novelty-and-originality-of-design-cannot-be-assessed-merely-through-superficial-visual-comparison\/#Importance_of_the_Judgment\" >Importance of the Judgment<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/novelty-and-originality-of-design-cannot-be-assessed-merely-through-superficial-visual-comparison\/#Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Court\" >Reasoning and Analysis of the Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/novelty-and-originality-of-design-cannot-be-assessed-merely-through-superficial-visual-comparison\/#Reliance_on_Gopal_Glass_Works_Case\" >Reliance on Gopal Glass Works Case<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/novelty-and-originality-of-design-cannot-be-assessed-merely-through-superficial-visual-comparison\/#Supreme_Court_View_on_Design_Originality\" >Supreme Court View on Design Originality<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/novelty-and-originality-of-design-cannot-be-assessed-merely-through-superficial-visual-comparison\/#Reference_to_SRMB_Srijan_Case\" >Reference to SRMB Srijan Case<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/novelty-and-originality-of-design-cannot-be-assessed-merely-through-superficial-visual-comparison\/#Court_Criticism_of_Controllers_Approach\" >Court Criticism of Controller\u2019s Approach<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/novelty-and-originality-of-design-cannot-be-assessed-merely-through-superficial-visual-comparison\/#Important_Precedents_Discussed\" >Important Precedents Discussed<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/novelty-and-originality-of-design-cannot-be-assessed-merely-through-superficial-visual-comparison\/#Functionality_Versus_Aesthetic_Elements\" >Functionality Versus Aesthetic Elements<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/novelty-and-originality-of-design-cannot-be-assessed-merely-through-superficial-visual-comparison\/#Findings_on_Prior_Publication_and_Originality\" >Findings on Prior Publication and Originality<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/novelty-and-originality-of-design-cannot-be-assessed-merely-through-superficial-visual-comparison\/#Final_Decision_of_the_Court\" >Final Decision of the Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/novelty-and-originality-of-design-cannot-be-assessed-merely-through-superficial-visual-comparison\/#Point_of_Law_Settled_in_the_Case\" >Point of Law Settled in the Case<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-18\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/novelty-and-originality-of-design-cannot-be-assessed-merely-through-superficial-visual-comparison\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p>The court examined the legal tests governing prior publication and originality and clarified that the Controller of Designs must conduct a meaningful inquiry into existing market materials and prior art before upholding a registered design.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The judgement is particularly relevant for industries dealing with construction materials, engineering products, and commercially manufactured goods where slight variations in patterns and configurations are often claimed as proprietary designs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The decision also reinforces the principle that registration under the Designs Act cannot be used to monopolise common trade variants already available in the public domain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"factual-and-procedural-background\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_and_Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Factual and Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The appellant, Ars Steels and Alloy International Private Limited, and the private respondent, Souvik Steels Private Limited, were both engaged in the manufacture and sale of TMT bars and construction rods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>On 6 November 2013, the respondent obtained registration of a design under Class 25-01 in respect of construction rods having a \u201cdouble XX-Rib\u201d pattern on the surface of the rods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In early 2016, the respondent issued a legal notice to the appellant alleging infringement of the registered design. The respondent also instituted a design infringement suit before the District Court at Bengaluru.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In response, the appellant filed an application under Section 19 of the Designs Act, 2000, seeking cancellation of the registered design.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The appellant challenged the registration on several grounds, namely:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The design had been previously registered.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The design had already been published prior to registration.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The design lacked novelty and originality.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The design was merely functional in nature and therefore incapable of protection under the Designs Act.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs rejected the cancellation application by an order dated 10 April 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The controller concluded that there was no prior publication of the impugned design and held that the design was not merely functional but possessed visual appeal capable of design protection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The controller, therefore, upheld the registration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Aggrieved by this order, the appellant approached the Calcutta High Court under Section 19(2) of the Designs Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"dispute-before-the-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Dispute_Before_the_Court\"><\/span>Dispute Before the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The principal controversy before the High Court was whether the registered \u201cXX-Rib\u201d design possessed sufficient novelty and originality to deserve protection under the Designs Act, 2000.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The appellant contended that similar X-Rib and XX-Rib designs had already existed in the market long before the registration date, and therefore the registered design was neither new nor original.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"documents-relied-upon-by-the-appellant\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Documents_Relied_Upon_by_the_Appellant\"><\/span>Documents Relied Upon by the Appellant<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The appellant relied on several documents, including:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Publications in the Indian Concrete Journal of 2004.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Business Line dated 8 September 2004.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The Hindu, dated 18 June 2011.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The appellant also relied upon invoices dating back to March and April 2003 to show the commercial sale of X-Rib TMT rods before the respondent\u2019s registration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Further evidence was produced to demonstrate that XX-Rib designs had already been used in the market by different manufacturers since 2012 and 2013.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"respondents-contentions\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Respondents_Contentions\"><\/span>Respondent\u2019s Contentions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The respondent, however, argued that the impugned design was distinct and visually identifiable and that the appellant had failed to establish any prior publication of the exact same design.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The respondent also contended that a design could possess both functional and aesthetic features and still qualify for protection under the Designs Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"key-legal-issues\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Legal_Issues\"><\/span>Key Legal Issues<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Issue<\/th><th>Description<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Prior Publication<\/td><td>Whether the XX-Rib design had already been published or commercially used before registration.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Novelty and Originality<\/td><td>Whether the registered design possessed sufficient distinctiveness under the Designs Act, 2000.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Functional Nature<\/td><td>Whether the rib pattern was purely functional and therefore excluded from protection.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Validity of Registration<\/td><td>Whether statutory protection could continue despite evidence of similar market designs.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"importance-of-the-judgment\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Importance_of_the_Judgment\"><\/span>Importance of the Judgment<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The judgement is significant for manufacturers and industries dealing with engineering and construction products where minor design variations are frequently claimed as proprietary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The ruling emphasizes that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Registration alone does not guarantee monopoly protection.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Prior market availability can invalidate a registered design.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The Controller of Designs must conduct a detailed examination of prior art.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Common trade variants cannot be monopolised through design registration.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The decision therefore strengthens the legal requirement of genuine novelty and originality under the Designs Act, 2000.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"reasoning-and-analysis-of-the-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Reasoning and Analysis of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The court observed that Section 2(d) defines \u201cdesign\u201d as features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament, or composition applied to an article which appeal solely to the eye, while excluding mere mechanical devices or purely functional features. Section 4 prohibits registration of designs which are not new or original or which have already been disclosed to the public prior to filing. Section 19 provides grounds for cancellation of registered designs, including prior publication and absence of novelty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court noticed that the Deputy Controller had failed to properly analyse the evidence produced by the appellant regarding prior publication and prior market use. The judgement emphasised that when allegations of prior publication are raised, the authority deciding the matter must carefully examine whether similar designs were already available in the market and whether the registered design truly possessed any distinctiveness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"reliance-on-gopal-glass-works-case\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reliance_on_Gopal_Glass_Works_Case\"><\/span>Reliance on Gopal Glass Works Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court relied heavily upon the decision in <em>Gopal Glass Works Limited v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs and Ors, 2005 SCC OnLine Cal 413<\/em>, where it was held that prior disclosure through trade catalogues, journals, magazines, brochures, or photographs depicting the same design on the same article could destroy novelty. The High Court reiterated that prior publication need not be in the form of identical replication; even clear disclosure sufficient to convey the design to an informed reader may invalidate novelty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"supreme-court-view-on-design-originality\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Supreme_Court_View_on_Design_Originality\"><\/span>Supreme Court View on Design Originality<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court also referred to the landmark Supreme Court judgement in <em>Bharat Tubes Limited v. Gopal Glass Works Ltd, (2008) 10 SCC 657<\/em>. In that case, the Supreme Court explained that the objective of the Designs Act is to reward genuine innovation and originality while preventing a monopoly over known designs already existing in trade.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur extracted extensive observations from the Supreme Court, explaining that the Act protects visual appearance rather than functional utility and that designs already disclosed to the public cannot receive protection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"reference-to-srmb-srijan-case\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reference_to_SRMB_Srijan_Case\"><\/span>Reference to SRMB Srijan Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court further discussed <em>SRMB Srijan Limited v. Triveni Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., 2011 SCC OnLine Cal 1935<\/em>, a case concerning X-Rib TMT rod designs. In that decision, it had already been held that the X-Rib design lacked novelty and originality because similar designs had existed in the market since 2001-2002.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court noted that the Controller had selectively referred to this precedent without meaningfully considering its implications for the present dispute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"court-criticism-of-controller-approach\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Court_Criticism_of_Controllers_Approach\"><\/span>Court Criticism of Controller\u2019s Approach<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The court criticised the controller for focusing only on \u201cocular impression\u201d without conducting the broader legal enquiry required under the Designs Act. According to the Court, novelty and originality are separate legal concepts requiring examination of the state of the art, prior trade variants, and market availability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The judgement stressed that even small changes to an old design do not necessarily create a new or original design if the essential visual character remains common in trade.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"important-precedents-discussed\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Important_Precedents_Discussed\"><\/span>Important Precedents Discussed<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><em>Phillips v. Harboro Rubber Company (1920) 37 RPC 233<\/em> \u2014 Ordinary trade variants in an old design do not make it original.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Western Engineering Company v. Paul Engineering Company, AIR 1968 Cal 109<\/em><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Anuradha Doval v. Controller of Patents and Designs, 2017 (71) PTC 288 (Cal)<\/em><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Shree Vari Multiplast India Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Controller of Patents &amp; Designs, 2018 SCC OnLine Cal 5820<\/em><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Jayson Industries v. Crown Craft (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3750<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>These authorities reinforced the requirement of comparing the impugned design with prior art and evaluating whether it creates a genuinely different overall visual impression.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"functionality-versus-aesthetic-elements\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Functionality_Versus_Aesthetic_Elements\"><\/span>Functionality Versus Aesthetic Elements<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>On the issue of functionality, the Court accepted the legal proposition that a design can possess both functional and aesthetic elements and still qualify for registration. For this proposition, the Court referred to <em>Cow (P.B.) &amp; Co. Ltd v. Cannon Rubber Manufacture Ltd, 1959 RPC 347<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>However, the Court held that the Controller had failed to adequately analyse whether the design was dictated entirely by functionality or whether any genuine visual creativity existed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"findings-on-prior-publication-and-originality\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Findings_on_Prior_Publication_and_Originality\"><\/span>Findings on Prior Publication and Originality<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Ultimately, the Court concluded that the impugned order suffered from serious infirmities because it ignored documentary evidence relating to prior use and prior publication and failed to apply the correct legal tests governing novelty and originality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"final-decision-of-the-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Final Decision of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Calcutta High Court set aside the order dated 10 April 2023 passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs. The court remanded the matter for fresh consideration by a different officer and directed that both parties be given an opportunity of hearing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>courtThe Court further directed that the reconsideration process be completed within three months from communication of the order. The Court clarified that its observations on merits were tentative and would not bind the authority conducting the fresh adjudication. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"point-of-law-settled-in-the-case\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Point_of_Law_Settled_in_the_Case\"><\/span>Point of Law Settled in the Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The judgement settles several important principles relating to industrial design protection under the Designs Act, 2000.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Novelty and originality of a design cannot be assessed merely through superficial visual comparison.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Authorities must examine prior art, market availability, and trade usage.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Prior publication includes journals, newspapers, catalogues, brochures, photographs, and commercial documents capable of conveying the design to an informed reader.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Ordinary trade variants or slight modifications of known designs do not qualify as new or original designs.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The controller of designs must conduct a detailed and reasoned inquiry into documentary evidence relating to prior publication.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Relevant judicial precedents dealing with similar designs cannot be ignored.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"case-details\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Particulars<\/th><th>Details<\/th><\/tr><tr><td>Case Title<\/td><td>Ars Steels and Alloy International Private Limited v. The Controller of Patents and Designs and Ors.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Date of Judgment<\/td><td>7 May 2026<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Case Number<\/td><td>IPDAID\/43\/2024<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Neutral Citation<\/td><td>2026:CHC-OS:160<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Court<\/td><td>High Court at Calcutta, Intellectual Property Rights Division<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Honourable Judge<\/td><td>Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction The case revolved around the validity of a registered design relating to TMT construction rods bearing a \u201cdouble XX-rib&#8221; surface pattern. The dispute raised a common but significant issue in industrial design law: whether a design which is already available in the market or substantially similar to existing designs can continue to enjoy statutory<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":23962,"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":[28,5969],"class_list":{"0":"post-23963","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-intellectual-property","8":"tag-top-news","9":"tag-trademark-laws"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/1-2.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23963","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\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23963"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23963\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24359,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23963\/revisions\/24359"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/23962"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23963"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23963"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23963"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}