Full bench of Delhi High Court on a reference held that:
(i) A plaintiff could institute a Suit for infringement of a design against a defendant, who was also a holder of a Registered Design (subsequent registrant). The expression "any person" found in Section 22 of the Designs Act would not exclude a subsequent registrant as, no such words of limitation are found in said Section.
(ii) A plaintiff is entitled to institute an action of passing off in respect of a design used by him as a trade mark provided the action contains the necessary ingredients to maintain such a proceeding.
While Section 2(d) of the Designs Act excludes from the definition of a design, any trademark which is defined as such in clause (v) of sub-Section (1) of Section 2 of the 1958 Act or property mark, as defined in Section 479 of the IPC, or any artistic work as defined in clause (c) of Section 2 of the Copyright Act - the use of the design as a trademark post its registration, is not stipulated as a ground for cancellation under Section 19 of the Designs Act.
(iii) A composite suit for infringement of a registered design and a passing off action would not lie. The Court could, however, try the suits together, if the two suits are filed in close proximity and/or it is of the view that there are aspects which are common to the two suits. The discretion of the court in this matter would necessarily be paramount.
This post first appeared on ASWAL ASSOCIATES- Patent And Trademark Attorneys, please read the originial post: here
