The association said the high court’s interpretation of “article” could make it easier for design registrations to be cancelled. INTA’s intervention relates to a case between a motorcycle manufacturer and a spare parts company.
of international trademark association (INTA) contends that it is a “false precedent” set by the Delhi High Court that spare or replacement parts of articles which cannot be sold separately as “merchandise” are not eligible for design protection.
In a design infringement case between a motorcycle manufacturer and a spare parts company, the court ruled that some articles that do not have an independent life as a commercial product cannot be registered as a design under Section 2(a). . Law (2000).
INTA moved the court to interrogate the interpretation of the word “article” under the Designs Act, arguing that its scope has been expanded beyond its ordinary meaning and that this will have “far-reaching implications” for design rights owners in India. He claimed that it could be given.
“Clear and unambiguous”
indian bike manufacturers hero motocorp Shree Amba Industries filed suit for infringing the design of the motorcycle’s front fender.
In August last year, the Delhi High Court rejected Hero MotoCorp’s request for an interim injunction, stating that the fender could not be registered under Section 2 as it did not have an independent life as a product and was sold as a replacement part. concluded that (a) the provisions of the Designs Act;
This is because the court held that the expression “any part of an article that can be manufactured and sold separately” in section 2(a) of the Designs Act is intended to include only those parts that can be sold as an article with an independent life. This is according to the government’s interpretation. Not just as a replacement/accessory, but as a product.
INTA stated that this conclusion is based on: ford motor company (1993), the English High Court’s decision relied on the definition of the term “article” under the then British Designs Act, which differed from the definition under Indian law.
The trade mark bodies further pointed out that the amendments to the UK Designs Act have expanded the scope of the term ‘article’ and that such a restriction for an article to have an independent life as a trade is not currently required in the UK. which one.
INTA said the definition of “article” under the Indian Designs Act is “clear and unequivocal” and should not be construed narrowly to incorporate limitations or conditions where none exist.
Impact on design owners
In its request for intervention, INTA objected that the court’s interpretation could result in the cancellation of many design registrations granted in India.
This was because the design owner had secured registration for spare or replacement parts of the article, whether or not they met the criteria for having an independent life as a commercial product.
“INTA is particularly interested in this case because the issue at issue, namely the interpretation of the term “article” under section 2(a) of the Designs Act, has a material impact on the rights and interests of design owners. I’m interested. ” the organization told the court.
It asked the court to allow the court to intervene and make oral submissions on the relevant legal issues.