Calcutta High Court: An appeal was filed under Section 19(2) of the Designs Act, 2000 read with the relevant Rules framed thereunder, directed against an order of cancellation dated 12-04-2023 passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs cancelling the registered design of 2 the appellant bearing no.233559 for an Air Cooler with effect from 27-12-2010. Ravi Krishan Kapur, J., sets aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the statutory authorities for fresh adjudication, directing them to consider all relevant evidence and legal arguments in accordance with the law.
The appellant was engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling industrial air coolers since 2009-2010, and had its design registered under number 233559. However, the respondent, a trade rival, challenged the registration based on prior art from a Chinese company, alleging similarities with their own registered design. The challenge to the appellant’s design registration stemmed from an application filed by a Chinese company, claiming prior publication of a similar design registered in China. This prompted the cancellation proceedings initiated by the respondent under Section 19 of the Designs Act. The cancellation was primarily based on the assertion that the appellant’s design lacked novelty and originality, as it resembled the design previously published by the Chinese company.
The appellant contested the cancellation on several grounds, arguing that the prior publication claim lacked sufficient evidence and that reliance solely on the Chinese design was unjustified. They also contended that the earlier rejection of a similar challenge by the same authority should have precluded reconsideration of the issue. Moreover, the appellant raised concerns about the admissibility and authenticity of the evidence presented by the respondent, particularly regarding translations and the reliability of online sources.
On the other hand, the respondent defended the cancellation, emphasizing the findings of the Deputy Controller based on the analysis of evidence, including data from the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) website. They argued that the publication of the Chinese design before the filing date of the appellant’s application rendered the latter unregistrable under the Act.
The Court noted that in passing the impugned order, the Deputy Controller ought to have dealt with the question of prior publication. There were only two documents relied on by the respondent no 2 (i) Certificate of Registration and (ii) a snapshot of CNIPA website. Prior publication cannot be concluded based on guesswork, surmises and conjectures. Registration in a foreign country per se is not a ground for cancellation of a design registered in India. An application under section 19(1)(b) of the Act, for cancellation of registration of a design in India can only be justified on the ground of prior publication. Moreover, such publication should be as contemplated under section 4(b) of the Act. Since the prior art changes as new designs are published, it is crucial to ascertain the relevant date when the prior art is to be assessed. There must cogent evidence to show publication of the design which had been made available to the public, and the impugned order was passed without consideration of this aspect.
The Court further noted that before passing the impugned order, the respondent no.2 was bound to examine the materials on record and find that there has been prior publication for questioning the novelty of the impugned design. The power to cancel a registered designed is a draconian power and ought not to be exercised in a casual and cavalier manner. Thus, the Court meticulously analyzed the evidence and legal arguments presented by both parties. It scrutinized the concept of prior publication and its implications for design registration under the Designs Act. The Court emphasized the importance of tangible publication in establishing prior art and highlighted the need for clear and explicit illustrations demonstrating the application of a design to an article.
After thorough examination, the Court concluded that the impugned order lacked adequate consideration of the issue of prior publication and failed to assess the evidence presented in accordance with legal standards. It criticized the reliance on unverified online sources and emphasized the stringent requirements for proving prior publication. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the statutory authorities for fresh adjudication, directing them to consider all relevant evidence and legal arguments in accordance with the law.
[Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor v. Controller of Patents and Designs, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 5391, decided on 24-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the appellant : Mr. Jishnu Saha, Senior Advocate Mr. Harshit Tolia, Senior Advocate Mr. Shuvasish Sengupta, Advocate Mr. Balarko Sen, Advocate Mr. Suvradal Choudhury, Advocate Mr. Biren Panchal,
Advocate For the respondent no. 3 : Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Senior Advocate Mr. D. Ghosh, Advocate Mr. V. Dutta, Advocate Mr. S. Dasgupta, Advocate Mr. D. Chadha, Advocate