Delhi High Court disallow protection to registered owner of Helmet design
Delhi High Court in this case examined the principles of novelty and originality
to be applied to a Design registered under the Design Act. SteelBird owner of a
registered design of beak shape helmet initiated an action before the Delhi High
Court against S.P.S. Gambhir & Ors (SPS) for imitation of its design. SteelBird
alleged that SPS is manufacturing and marketing helmets with the same design copying
all the essential features of the SteelBird’s design. At the time of filing
of infringement suit an ex-parte injunction was granted restraining SPS from using
the design. On being served SPS appeared and applied for setting aside the injunction
order, and the case was heard on merits. SteelBird contended that design
of their helmets were novel with distinctive features; in shape, configuration and
surface pattern and registered under the Design Act thus providing them the highest
degree of protection. SteelBird further contended that in November 2012 they learnt
about the fraudulent imitation of the registered design by SPS who started manufacturing
and selling helmets under the same design by copying the essential features of SteelBird’s
registered design. SPS contended that the design of the SteelBird lacked
novelty. It contended that claim of novelty over beak shaped design is common to
trade and several competitors like STUDDS and AIROH have similar design helmets
existing in the market prior to the registration by SteelBird’s design. To
substantiate their stand they also produced brochure of the other competitors prior
to the registration of the SteelBird’s design showing similar shape and design
of helmets being available in the market for sale. The Court after considering
the submission of both sides observed that the SSP had successfully proved that
the design of SteelBird had been prior published and was in the public knowledge
even prior to the registration. Holding that the SteelBird’s design was not
new and original, the Court observed that the ex parte injunction was liable to
be set aside and SSP was entitled to use their designs of helmets.