INDIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Mohit Goel, Sidhant Goel, Aditya Goel and Mehr Bajaj, Sim and San, Attorneys at Law
4.5 Functionality and Technical Features Under the Designs Act, 2000, only aesthetic features judged solely by the eye are protectable. Courts dis- tinguish protectable visual features from those dic- tated by technical necessity, refusing protection where the shape or configuration is essential for the product to perform its function. Functional elements, methods of construction and mechanical features fall outside design law and are more appropriately protected by patent law, if at all. Partial designs or specific visible features may be pro- tected if they are novel, independently distinctive and visually significant, with applicants often using dis- claimers or broken lines to define the claimed portion. A design may be refused or invalidated if it lacks nov- elty, has been previously published, or consists solely of functional or technically necessary features. India has no standalone trade secrets statute. Pro- tection is derived from the Indian Contract Act, 1872, equitable breach of confidence principles, the Infor- mation Technology Act, 2000, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and India’s obligations under TRIPS. The Draft Protection of the Trade Secrets Bill, 2024, proposed by the 22nd Law Commission, seeks to introduce a statutory framework but has not yet been enacted. Protectable trade secrets include: • manufacturing processes; • formulas; • source code; 5. Trade Secrets 5.1 Legal Framework and Protectable Information
Protection subsists for an initial term of ten years from registration (or priority date), extendable for five fur- ther years, with a maximum term of 15 years. Lapsed registrations may be restored within the prescribed period, subject to statutory requirements being met. 4.4 Enforcement and Remedies Industrial Designs Design infringement under Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000 occurs where a registered design or an obvious or fraudulent imitation is applied to articles without authorisation. Courts apply an overall visual impression test rather than a technical comparison. In Relaxo Footwears Limited v Aqualite India Limited (2022), the Delhi High Court granted interim protection to visually distinctive footwear designs, while Crocs Inc . USA v Bata India Limited (2019) highlighted key defences such as prior publication, lack of novelty and functionality. In UST Global ( Singapore ) Pte . Ltd . v Controller of Patents and Designs , the Calcutta High Court recognised that graphical user interfaces (GUIs) may qualify for design protection. Trade Dress Trade dress is enforced through trade mark infringe- ment and passing off under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Protection extends to distinctive product shape, pack- aging, colour combinations and overall get-up that function as source identifiers. Carlsberg Breweries A / S v Som Distilleries (2018) and the Full Bench decision in Mohan Lal , Proprietor of Mourya Industries v Sona Paint & Hardwares confirm that design infringement and passing off are distinct but may coexist. Remedies and Border Measures Indian courts readily grant interim and ex parte injunc- tions, the appointment of Local Commissioners for search and seizure, delivery-up, damages or accounts of profits, and costs. Customs border enforcement is available primarily for trade marks and copyright under the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007; design owners often combine design, trade mark and passing off claims to strengthen enforcement against infringing imports.
• technical drawings; • customer lists; and • business plans.
To obtain protection, a claimant must establish: • information possessing the necessary quality of confidence;
122 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook