Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. dismissed a suit for permanent injunction for refraining the infringement of plaintiff’s registered design and copyright inhering in ‘Pre-Cut Eye Drape’.
The plaintiff was into the business of manufacturing, marketing, distribution and sale of medical and surgical instruments. It was his case that in efforts to cater to the emerging needs of Ophthalmologists and patients, the plaintiff designed ‘Pre-Cut Eye Drape’ (a sheet used to cover the face while eye surgery) with novel technology, unique shape, size and configuration. The plaintiff’s design was claimed to be novel in as much as unlike other sheets used for the same purpose, the ‘Pre-Cut Eye Drape’ came with a pre-cut aperture from where the surgeon can operate and further a pouch is attached wherein the fluids draining out of the eye during the surgery can be collected. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants, who were engaged in the same business, were using a product which was a copy of plaintiff’s design.
The High Court, after referring to Section 2(d) of the Designs Act 2000, held that the design claimed by the plaintiff did not qualify as a ‘design’ under the section. Further, a plaintiff approaching the Court against infringement of a design, has to satisfy the Court that the design is new or original or is registrable under the Act, and which the plaintiff in the present case failed to satisfy. The Court did not find any novelty in plaintiff’s design. The aperture in the design was in a straight line and did not have any eye-catching boundaries. One essential element to qualify as a ‘design’ under Section 2(d) is the quality of the design being appealing to the eye. However, the product claimed as a ‘design’ by the plaintiff only had a functional utility and was not of an aesthetic or eye-catching nature. The Court held, “A functional shape or configuration which is dictated solely by functionality is not registrable under the Designs Act as a ‘design’. Once, the overall appearance is dictated by function, it cannot be registered as a ‘design’ and the registration, if any, is invalid”. Moreover, in Court’s opinion, there was nothing non-obvious, novel or unique in terms of shape, size, configuration, pattern and composition of lines in the Eye Drape of the plaintiff. Finally, holding the product not to be a ‘design’ for being of a character purely functional and not ornamental, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s suit for infringement of his registered design. [Rajesh Kalra v. SafeOps. Surgical Care,2018 SCC OnLine Del 9516, decided on 28-05-2018]
