Court Finds Lack of Novelty and Prior Publication in Double "XX-Rib" TMT Bar Design
In a significant judgment issued on May 7, 2026, the Calcutta High Court, presided over by Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, has overturned a previous decision by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, directing a reassessment of the registration status of a design for construction rods bearing the double "XX-Rib" shape. The case, ARS Steels and Alloy International Private Limited v. Controller Of Patents and Designs, highlights crucial aspects of design law, particularly concerning novelty and originality under the Designs Act, 2000.
The registered design in question, owned by Souvik Steels Private Limited, was initially challenged by ARS Steels And Alloy International Private Limited on grounds including prior publication, lack of novelty, and its purely functional nature. The Deputy Controller had previously rejected these claims, concluding that the design had aesthetic appeal beyond mere functionality and was not previously published in the public domain.
Justice Kapur, however, found that documentary evidence indicating prior use and publication was disregarded by the Deputy Controller in the original ruling. The High Court emphasized that the lack of novelty and originality, coupled with evidence of prior publication, rendered the design incapable of registration. The judgment underscores the necessity for thorough examination of whether substantial differences exist between the registered design and prior designs, a process that was found lacking in the previous assessment.
The decision mandates a fresh examination of the application for cancellation of the design registration, requiring the Controller to consider all evidence provided and reassess the design's novelty and originality. This judgment sets a precedent for the rigorous application of legal standards in design registration and cancellation processes, reaffirming the importance of originality and novelty in protecting intellectual property rights.
The matter has been remanded for reconsideration, with instructions for the process to be completed within three months, ensuring a fair reevaluation of the design's registration status. The judgment serves as a reminder of the dynamic interplay between aesthetic appeal and functionality in design law, highlighting the judicial system's role in safeguarding innovative design practices.
Bottom line:-
Design Law - A registered design lacking novelty or originality and having prior publication is incapable of registration and liable to be canceled under the Designs Act, 2000.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 2(d), 4, 19 of the Designs Act, 2000
