Registered design protection depends on prior disclosure and distinctiveness, not mere market similarity at a later stage.

Novelty and originality in a registered design must be assessed as of the registration date, by reference to prior disclosure or public availability, not by the mere present presence of similar products in the market. A court-directed market survey, without evidentiary linkage to prior publication or earlier availability, is insufficient to displace prima facie design protection. The design also was not shown to be merely a trade variant or common to trade; the relevant test is whether it is significantly distinguishable from known designs at the time of registration. Interim protection was therefore held to be warranted pending trial.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the existence of similar products in the market, as revealed by a court-directed market survey and other material, could establish that the registered design lacked novelty and originality at the time of registration; (ii) Whether the design was merely a trade variant or common to trade so as to fall within the prohibition on registration under the Designs Act, 2000.

Issue (i): Whether the existence of similar products in the market, as revealed by a court-directed market survey and other material, could establish that the registered design lacked novelty and originality at the time of registration.

Analysis: Novelty and originality have to be assessed with reference to the date of registration and on the basis of whether the design was previously disclosed or available in the public domain. The fact that similar products are presently available in the market does not, by itself, establish that the design was not new or original when registered. A market survey conducted without evidentiary linkage to prior publication or prior availability cannot e the statutory question. Material showing only current market presence, or a stray assertion about an unrelated element of the product, is insufficient to displace the prima facie protection of a registered design.

Conclusion: The material relied upon did not justify a prima facie finding that the registered design lacked novelty or originality.

Issue (ii): Whether the design was merely a trade variant or common to trade so as to fall within the prohibition on registration under the Designs Act, 2000.

Analysis: A design is registrable only if it is new or original, not previously disclosed, and significantly distinguishable from known designs or combinations of known designs. The concept that a mark may be common to trade has no direct application to design infringement. Footwear may involve functional constraints, but that does not mean all footwear designs are unprotectible or merely trade variants. The relevant inquiry is whether the impugned design is indistinguishable from known designs at the time of registration. On the material before the Court, that threshold was not met.

Conclusion: The design was not shown to be merely a trade variant or otherwise barred from registration under the Designs Act, 2000.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order refusing interim protection was unsustainable, and the registered design was entitled to interim protection pending trial.

Ratio Decidendi: A registered design cannot be denied protection on the basis of present market similarity alone; the statutory test is whether the design was previously disclosed or known, or not significantly distinguishable, at the time of registration.

---