https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330592 Registered design protection was denied because the prior publications and article-wise comparison showed the designs were already known and lacked prima facie novelty. Copyright relief in the product drawings and moulds was also refused because the materials were prepared for industrial manufacture, did not show the minimum originality or independent artistic character required, and could not be treated as subsisting copyright in the same industrial design. Passing off was not made out because the plaintiffs did not establish that the shape or trade dress had become distinctive in the market or exclusively associated with them; visual similarity alone was insufficient. en-us Thu, 21 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 Jul 2016 18:40:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330592 Registered design protection was denied because the prior publications and article-wise comparison showed the designs were already known and lacked prima facie novelty. Copyright relief in the product drawings and moulds was also refused because the materials were prepared for industrial manufacture, did not show the minimum originality or independent artistic character required, and could not be treated as subsisting copyright in the same industrial design. Passing off was not made out because the plaintiffs did not establish that the shape or trade dress had become distinctive in the market or exclusively associated with them; visual similarity alone was insufficient. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 21 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330592