COPYRIGHT PIRACY & INFRINGEMENT

Prathiba M. Singh LL.M.(Cantab)

F-12, Jangpura Extension
New Delhi 110 014
Ph: 91-11-24314741/42
Fax:91-11- 24312895
e-mail: singhandsingh@vsnl.com
Statutes Governing Various IPRs
Trade Marks Act, 1999
Copyright Act, 1957
Designs Act, 2000
The Patents Act, 1970
Legislature Parliament
Statutory Enactments
Administrative Machinery
involved in Registration
Procedures
Departments in the Government
viz., Police, Customs, etc.,
Judiciary
Various Entities Involved
COPYRIGHT - A GLOBAL RIGHT
Right exists on creation
No registration is
needed
Protectable in all
Convention countries.
Almost 150 countries are
covered
Reciprocal protection in
all countries
COPYRIGHT
Categories of
copyrighted works
literary
artistic
musical
Dramatic
Cinematograph films
Sound Recordings
Broadcasters rights
Performers Rights
Copyright
Computer includes any electronic or similar
device having information processing
capabilities (added by amendment in 1995)
Duplicating equipment means any mechanical
contrivance or device used or intended to be
used for making copies of any work.
Reprography means the making of copies of a
work, by photocopying or similar means
Copyright
Publication means making a work available to
the public by means of copies or by
communicating the work to the public.

But by a review of cases one can see that
protection against what is contemplated under
the new WIPO treaty has already been
granted by judge-made law.
Examples of some works
Choreography:
art of arranging designing of ballet or
stage dance in symbolic language.
It is a form of dramatic work.
In order to qualify for the copyright
protection it must be reduced into
writing.
Examples of some works
Ballet:
The elements of ballet are the music,
the story, the choreography, the
scenery, and the costumes.
A composite work.
Such work could be the subject
matter of copyright.
Examples of some works
Painting :
An artistic work whether or not it posses any
artistic quality .
To be entitled to copyright protection a painting
must be original i.e. it should originate from the
painter and not a mere copy of another painting.
A painting must be on a surface of some kind.
Facial make-up as such, however idiosyncratic it
must be an idea,
cannot possibly be a painting for the purpose of
copyright act.
Sculpture:
Included in the definition of artistic work
the work of sculpture includes casts and models.
means the art, act, process of carving cutting,
hewing, molding or constructing materials into
statutes , ornaments, figures
The act, art, process of producing figures or
groups in plastic or hard materials.
The art of sculpture is the branch of the visual
arts that is especially concerned with the
creation of expressive form in three dimensions.
A sculpture should in some way express in three
dimensional form an idea of the sculptor.
Examples of some works
NEW ENCYCLOPEDIA QUOTED IN WHAM-O CASE. A
Frisbee was a sculpture.
Copyright subsists original sculpture. The creation of a
sculpture no doubt involves good amount of skill and labor
Creativity
All Industry be it fashion design,
manufacturing of industrial goods,
manufacturing of aesthetic items of
export, production of jewellery etc. has
intellectual creativity in them

Creativity starts from the very moment
the creator draws his first sketch, makes
improvements on it and finally arrives at
the product.
Creativity
Creation goes through various steps
which can be broadly divided
Conception
Design & development
Commercial manufacture.
Creativity
At each of these stages, there are works which are
created that can be protected in law
Examples
- A drawing or a sketch which can be created as
the first conception of a product is a
copyrightable subject matter
- The shape and aesthetic look given to a
product is protectable under the Designs Act
- The final product and the brand which is given
to the product are protectable under the
Trade Mark Act
- If the shape is unique and can be identified
exclusively with a specific product then the
shape is also protectable
At every stage there is creation of what is loosely
referred to as Intellectual Property
Safeguards
Organisations which are engaged in any of
the above stages of creation of a product
ought to protect their creation.

Sufficient safeguards ought to be taken
to ensure that such works are not misused
or plagiarised
Safeguards
Whenever designs or any other subject
matter of Intellectual Property is created
within an organisation, the contract should
clearly specify that anything created by
the employees during the course of their
employment would automatically belong to
the organisation which will have the rights
to exploit the same
Safeguards
Documents relating to the creation should
be preserved chronologically in original.
The same should be maintained under
specific portfolio and should be kept under
the custody of any of the Top Management
Officials
Safeguards
Once the final product is created and before it is
sent for industrial manufacture or in the case of
a designer product before it is put in the market
for sale, steps should be taken to protect it by
filing Copyright applications or Design applications

Care must be taken to ensure that no prior
publication is made before such applications are
filed. This would ensure that in the case of a
design, prior publication is not made and in case of
copyright. , no one else claims prior rights
Safeguards
The applications which are filed should be
followed up diligently and registration
certificates obtained should be maintained in
the records of the organisation.

The Copyright office is located in Delhi. The
Designs office comes under the Controller
General of Patents and Designs & Trade
Marks, which is situated at Kolkata. However,
applications can be filed through posts
If any misuse of the drawing, design, mark or work is
seen, immediate steps should be taken to protect
them
Defences Available
That the design has been previously registered in
India; or
That it has been published in India or in any other
country prior to the date of registration; or
That the design is not a new or original design; or
That the design is not registrable under this Act;
or
It is not a design as defined under clause (d) of
section 2.
TERM OF COPYRIGHT
The term of copyright
for literary, dramatic musical or artistic work is
lifetime of author + 60 years

for anonymous or pseudonymous work is 60
years from the date of publishing

for a photograph, sound recording,
cinematographic film and government work is 60
years from date of publishing of the work

INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT
What constitutes infringement?
Doing or authorizing to do any of the
following acts without the consent or license
of owner of copyright:

Reproduce the work including its storage by any
electronic means
Issue copies to the public
Perform/Communicate the work to public
Make translation of the work
Make adaptation of the work
To make any cinematograph film or sound recording
in respect of the work.
INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT
Permit for profit any place to be used for
communication of the work when infringement
To permit for profit any place to be used for the
communication constitutes infringement of the
copyright in the work unless he is not aware or
has reasonable grounds for believing that such
communication to the public will be an
infringement of copyright
make infringing copies of work for sale, hire or
display or offer for sale or hire
import infringing copies in India
Types of copyright in one work
BOOKS:
1. Rights of the author
2. Rights of the publisher
in India and abroad
3. Rights of a person
publishing the book on
CD Rom/multimedia
format
4. Rights on the Internet
Types of copyright in one work
MUSIC:
1. Right of lyricist
2. Music director
3. Singer
4. Orchestra
5. Music company
6. Version recordings
Types of copyright in one work
Machinery
This can be sub-matter
of patent & copyright.
But drawings of
machinery falls in
copyright.
Escorts Construction
case.
Types of copyright in one work
PEPSI CAN
1. Copyright in the
packaging, colours etc.
2. Trade mark in Pepsi
3. Copyright in circular
device
4. Copyright in manner of
writing Pepsi
Adaptations of various works
MUSIC --
SONGS
Original album
New albums
Remixes
Version
Recordings
Pop versions
DJ versions
Adaptations of various works
STORY
PUBLISHED IN A
BOOK
STORY ENACTED
IN A DRAMA
TRANSLATION
TELE-SERIAL
CINEMATOGRAPH
FILM
Adaptations of various works
STORY
OPERA/BALLET
MUSICAL VERSION
COMPILATION
Each of the above
works, once created
have a separate, new
copyright, protectable
as original works.
Adaptations of various works
POEMS
SONGS
SOUND
RECORDINGS
PERFORMANCES
POETRY BOOKS
COMPILATIONS
OF POETRY,
including expert
comments
Adaptations of various works
PAINTINGS
Licensing as covers for
books
Licensing on stamps
Create new versions by
changing the sizes of
the painting
Calendars
Diaries etc.,
Exceptions-fair use
Section 52 of the Copyright Act enlists
acts which do not constitute infringement,
viz.
Fair dealing for the purpose of private use,
including research and criticism or review of
the work.
Fair dealing for the purpose of reporting
current events in a newspaper, etc.
reproduction for the purpose of judicial
proceeding or report of judicial proceeding.
Exceptions-fair use
Making of temporary or back-up copies
to provide against destruction or
damage
Observation, study or testing of
functioning of the computer programme
making of copies of software from a
legal copy for non-commercial personal
use
Fair Dealing
Fair dealing is permitted for the
purposes of
private study or research ,
criticism or
review or
the reporting of current events.
Fair Dealing
Fair dealing with the literary, dramatic,
musical or artistic work does not infringe
any copyright in the work if used
for the purposes of research or private
study,
in the case of a published edition, in the
typographical arrangement.
The aim of this provision is to give students and researchers
greater access to copyright works.
Fair Dealing or Permitted Acts
SEC 52(1)(o) : Making a maximum of 3 copies for
the use of a public library.

Sec 52(1)(c): Reproduction for judicial proceedings
or for the purpose of a report of a judicial
proceeding. Judicial proceedings are defined as
including proceedings before any court, tribunal, or
person having authority to decide any matter
affecting a persons legal rights or liabilities.

SEC 52 (1)(m) : Reproduction in newspaper and
magazine of the article of the current economic,
political, social or religious topic in certain
situation.
Fair Dealing or Permitted Acts
SEC 52(1)(p): Reproduction of unpublished work
kept in a museum or library for the purpose of
research or study.

Sec 52(1)(d) : Reproduction in any work prepared
for the exclusive use of members of any
legislature or publication of a translation of acts of
legislature or rules
Fair Dealing or Permitted Acts
Sec 52(1)(h) : Reproduction by a teacher or a
pupil in the course of instruction, or as part of a
question paper or in answers to such questions.

e.g. It seems that the teacher may copy onto a
blackboard a substantial part of a literary work,
and pupil may copy it down. The teacher may
however not photocopy the same material for the
use by students in absence of a licensing
agreement.
Fair Dealing or Permitted Acts
SEC 52(1)(f): Reading and recitation in public of
extracts (literary or dramatic).

SEC 52 (1)(g) : Publication in collection for the use of
educational institution in certain circumstances.
Sec 52(1)(I) : Performance in course of activities of
educational institutions in certain circumstances.

WORK OF ARCHITECTURE:
SEC 52(1)(s) :The making or publishing of a painting
,drawing, engraving or photograph of a work of
architecture does not constitute infringement.
Fair Dealing or Permitted Acts
WORK OF ARTISTIC CRAFTSMANSHIP:
SEC 52(1)(t): The making or publishing of a
painting, drawing, engraving, or photograph of a
sculpture, or other artistic work falling under the
category of a work of artistic craftsmanship if
the work is permanently situate in a public place
or any premises to which the public has access will
not constitute infringement.
Fair Dealing or Permitted Acts
AUTHORS RIGHT TO USE MOULD, CAST etc.
OF WORK:

SEC 52 (1)(v): The use by the author of an
artistic work, where the author of such work is not
the owner of the copyright therein, of any mould,
cast, sketch, plan, model or study made by him for
the purpose of the work

Provided that he does not thereby repeat or imitate the
main design of the work
Fair Dealing or Permitted Acts
SEC 52(2) The exceptions to infringement listed
under s. 52(1) in relation to literary, or dramatic,
musical artistic work will apply also in relation to
any translation or adaptation of such work
Whether registration is essential?
Particulars needed for registration:
1. Name of author
2. Date of publication
3. Whether assignments are obtained
4. If it is an artistic work, then no-objection
from Trade Marks Registry
Advantages of registration:
1. Documentation comes in place in terms of
assignments/no-objections from authors
2. Evidence of date when the work was created
3. Prima facie evidence of particulars
4. Easier to take action especially criminal action
where police are convinced with copyright
certificate. (re:software, music)
Whether registration is essential?
Remedies
Civil remedy
A suit for infringement of
copyright can lie in the
District Court or in a High
Court of Original
Jurisdiction.
Remedies contd.,
Civil remedy
Reliefs to be claimed:
1. Injunction coupled with
Anton Piller orders, John Doe
orders & Mareva injunction
2. Rendition of accounts,
damages
3. Delivery Up

Remedies contd
Criminal:
Copyright infringement is a
cognisable offence. A criminal
complaint can be filed either before
the police or a Magistrate and
search & seizure orders can be
obtained.
Pros & Cons of Civil remedies
PROS
Proper judicial
determination of rights
Likelihood of earning
damages
Less subject to
challenge
Commissioners seizure
orders are more
respected

CONS
Delays - Trial, Appeal,
Supreme Court
Damages not usually
awarded
No severe punishment
for violation of rights

Pros & Cons-Criminal remedies
PROS
Quick remedy
Greater possibility of
curbing violation
quickly because of fear
of being arrested in a
criminal case
CONS
Chances of seizure of
goods may be less as
there can be a leakage
Difficulty in
coordinating with
police authorities
CRIMINAL REMEDIES
Section 63 of the Copyright Act,1957 defines
offence of infringement of copyright.

Infringement of copyright is a cognizable offence
punishable with imprisonment upto 3 years and
fine upto 2 lakh rupees
OVERLAP OF DESIGN,
COPYRIGHT &
TRADE MARK

Copyright & Design
Design is for aesthetic appearance. Anything
functional is not registrable as a design

Copyright in a design comes to an end if the
work has industrial application and is
reproduced more than 50 times

Is there diff. between copyright in a design
and copyright in a drawing. Yes.
Confusion is worse with Trade mark
definition being amended
Shape is also a trade mark But articles
like dresses, sculpture etc., cannot come in
trade marks.
However commercial products have more
overlaps in protection.
Designs
Design
As per Copinger and Skone James on Copyright, a design
is, in broad terms, the plan or scheme for the appearance
of an article (or a part of an article).
It primarily concerns with what an article looks like or is
intended to look like.
It is not concerned with how an article performs its
function. The design of an article may be recorded in any
form including the written description, sketch, drawing,
photograph or it could actually be embodied in the article
itself. Design has also been defined as the design of any
aspect of the shape or configuration (whether internal
or external) of the whole or part of an article.
Copinger & Skone James on Copyright, 15th Edn., Vol.
1, pg. 730
Infringement
Infringement in the context of Indian Textiles, Apparels and
Life Style Industry:

Indian Textiles:

If artistic patterns are drawn up on a piece of cloth to be
used for any purpose, including but not limited to for instance,
making of garments, bed sheets, sofa covers, table cloths,
etc., then the artistic patterns printed on the piece of cloth
are protected as copyrights.
On the other hand, if a designer of clothes creates a new
pattern of garment to be used as a fashionable attire, then
the sketch/ drawing that is drawn of the pattern of the
garment is protected as a copyright.
Infringement
However, once the idea of the creative pattern is
implemented on the piece of cloth, then the same
may be protected as a design right.

If, the intention of the designer is to ensure that
only one piece of the garment is manufactured,
then the same could also be protected as the
artistic work imprinted on the piece of cloth
having copyrights.
Infringement
Alternatively, if the designers intention is to
produce several thousands of garments in
different scheme of colours, etc., then the
intention of the designer is to use the said design
in the industry. Accordingly, the latter form of use
of the same material may be considered to be a
design.

There is an ongoing debate on the issue and a lot
depends on the manner, in which the author of the
work intends to use the work.
Indian Cases
Cases
Tahiliani Design Private Ltd. vs. Renu Tandon & Anr.
C.S. (OS) No. 2222 of 2008 Before Honble Delhi High Court
Cases
Allegation that the Defendants garments were copies
of the garments designed and crafted by the Plaintiff

The said garments were supposed to be developed,
designed and crafted by the plaintiff as a part of
their collection for the year 2006

The Honble Delhi High Court vide order dated
21.10.2008 granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction
Tahiliani Design Private Ltd. vs. Renu Tandon & Anr.
C.S. (OS) No. 2222 of 2008 Before Honble Delhi High Court
Cases
Defendant served notice.

Application for vacation of stay moved claiming that
both designs are separate.

The impugned prints are generic Jamawar Prints

Matter is sub-judice Referred to Mediation

Tahiliani Design Private Ltd. vs. Renu Tandon & Anr.
C.S. (OS) No. 2222 of 2008 Before Honble Delhi High Court
Cases
Allegation of infringement of
copyright as the defendant used
the dress in a movie which was
worn by an actress

Importance of costumes worn by
actors and actresses in a film play
special role and serve purpose of
promotion of the movie

Held that all kinds of clothes worn
by actors cannot be stated as Fair
Use permitted under sec 52 (1)
(u).
Suneet Varma Design Pvt. Ltd. Vs Jas Kirat Singh Narula &
Anr. [2007 (34) PTC 81 (Del)]
Cases
Case relating to design of upholstery
Plaintiff claimed to have copyright in the
artistic work applied to upholstery design
Did not have a registered design however
they claimed a copyright in the drawings
Microfibres Inc vs. Girdhar and Co. and Ors. : 2006(32)
PTC 157 (Del)
Cases
Question was whether without a registered design, the
plaintiff could protect the same and whether the
copyright was lost because of more than 50
reproduction of the said upholstery fabric design
The Court although upholding that the motives etc. of
the plaintiff was artistic and also holding that the
defendants had copied it, on a legal and technical
argument that more than 50 reproduction had been
made, refused to grant injunction
Microfibres Inc vs. Girdhar and Co. and Ors. : 2006(32)
PTC 157 (Del)
Cases
Plaintiff claimed an injunction on the ground that
his designs of shoe soles had distinctive shape
and configuration

During the course of argument, it was revealed
that the plaintiff himself had copied designs
from Bata India Ltd.

Thus Court had held that the plaintiff himself
being a pirater, no injunction can be granted in
favour of the plaintiff
1997(17) PTC 268: Baldev Singh vs. Shriram Footwear
Cases
Case under the Designs Act, 2000
Plaintiff had claimed that defendants copied the
design Stylush, Corel and Ultra in respect of
bath tubs
Defendant had not established that he had been
selling bath tubs prior to the registration obtained by
plaintiff in respect of similar designs
Plaintiff had a registered design
Sufficient resemblance between the two designs and
the plaintiffs design was protected
Hindustan Sanitaryware & Industries Ltd. vs. Dip Crafts
Industries: 2003(26) PTC163 (Del)
Cases
Judgment of full bench of Delhi High Court
Holds primarily that in a case filed for infringement of a
design, the defendant would be entitled to take a
defence that the registration of the design itself was
incorrect
Various grounds can be taken for claim that the
registration was granted wrongly, namely, that the design
is not new or original or unique
If any of the grounds can be proved, then the fact that
the design is registered by itself, does not come to the
aid of the plaintiff
Registration can be a proof at the first stage but it has
to be established that this was not copied design and
that it is a new and original
Metro Plastic Industries (Regd.) vs. M/s. Galaxy Footwear
New Delhi: 2000(20) PTC 1
Cases
Suit filed alleging infringement of design in respect of a
bottle which is being used by plaintiff for packing hair oil
Court found plaintiffs bottle to be common bottle used
by several other companies
Bottles were held to be in use much prior to the
registration of the design of the plaintiff
No peculiar feature of the bottle registered as a design
and the plaintiff had not pin pointed any novelty in the
design of the bottle
Held that for validly of the registered design there must
be some novelty and originality in the design sought to be
protected and it must have not been pre-published
Dabur India Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors 2008 (37) PTC
227
Cases
Suit filed for the infringement as well as passing off of
design in Toy Scooter
The defendant pleaded the prior publication of the
design
Another defense taken by the defendant was that the
defendant too was having the registration of the design
Court held that there were various dissimilarities in the
prior published design
The design of the defendant was identical to the design
of the plaintiff
Hence the defendant is not protected even on account of
the registration having been obtained by it which
admittedly is the subsequent registration
Vikas Jain Vs. Aftab Ahmad And Ors, 2008 (37) PTC 288
(Del)
Cases
Suit for infringement of a design, where the defendant had
filed a cancellation petition with the Controller of Designs
Proceedings pending before the controller of Design who
had heard the arguments in the cancellation petition before
him and the order had been reserved
Defendant had also sought the transfer of the cancellation
proceedings from the Controller to the Honble Delhi High
Court
Honble High Court declined to stay the proceedings pending
before the Controller and to order for the transfer of
those proceedings as there was no provision for the
transfer of the cancellation proceedings under the Act
Reckitt Benckiser Australia Pty Ltd. And Anr Vs. R. B.
Impex And Ors 2008 (37) PTC 262 (Del)
Cases
Single Judge of this Court held that once a design was
registered, prima facie, it was only the registered
proprietor, who could take benefit of the registered design
The Court then negatived the contention that even if a false
plea about the validity of registration was taken up by a
Defendant, no interim injunction should be granted.
The Court went on to hold that the contention that the
design had no novelty was a valid defence to the Suit and
could be raised to challenge the validity of the registration.
It further held that this did not have any bearing at the
initial stage and that these were matters to be decided on
evidence.
It must be mentioned that after so holding the Court, went
into the merits and held that in that case it had not been
shown that the design was previously published
Sat Pal Singh Vs. S.P. Engineering Works - 1982(2) PTC 193
Faber Castell Textliner.
A dark green body
Unique cap of same colour as
colour of ink
Gold lettering on green body
Regd design.
Prior Publication could be
through prior documents or
some other prior user.
Injunction granted
Cases
Faber Castell Vs. Pikpen - 2003 PTC 538
Suitcases made by plaintiff
copied by defendant
The entire range was
copied
Claim was based on
drawings & copyright
No registered design
No protection granted as it
is manufactured
industrially more than 50
times.
Cases
Samsonite Vs. Vijay Sales 1998 PTC 372
Design of photo-frames
Registered design
Defendant no.2 was an
employee of plaintiff
Injunction granted
protecting the copyright
in the design of photo-
frames
Cases
Preeti Gupta Vs. Rajendra Prahladkar 2002 PTC 64
International Cases
RADELY GOWNS Ltd. v COSTAS SPYROU and BROKE v
SPINCERS DRESS DESIGN Ltd.(1975) FSR 455

Plaintiff & defendant
manufacture ladies
clothing.
Copyright claimed in 3
stages of Manufacturing
Procedure viz.,
- design sketches,
- cutting patterns
- prototype garments
Def argued
Prototype is not work
of artis.crtms.
No one author is
involved
Cutting patterns are
functional
One of the sketches
was copied from earlier
dress
Dress could not
reproduce a sketch
Stiffness was to be
given otherwise it is not
a dress
Delay
RADELY GOWNS Ltd. v COSTAS SPYROU and BROKE v
SPINCERS DRESS DESIGN Ltd.(1975) FSR 455

Court Held:
It is work of A.C
Need not unite with one
author
Dress can be a 3
dimensional reproduction
of a sketch
Huge diff between the
earlier dress and new
one, hence plaintiff work
is original
RADELY GOWNS Ltd. v COSTAS SPYROU and BROKE v
SPINCERS DRESS DESIGN Ltd.(1975) FSR 455

BRIGID FOLEY Ltd. v ELLOT (1982) RPC 433
It has been observed that if there is a
direct copying from a garment which one
person has designed and produced by
himself, doing all the cutting , stitching, and
so on, there might be a case for saying that
there would be a breach of doing that.
BERNSTEIN v SYDNEY MURRAY(1981) RPC 303
The plaintiffs were owners of
copyright in certain sketches
for ladies garments in which
the garments were shown as
worn by ladies. They had
displayed garments made
from such sketches in fashion
shows and shop windows.
Defendants have copied the
dresses produced from
plaintiffs sketches. It was
held that this constituted
infringement of copyright in
sketches.

BURKE and MARGOT BURKE Ltd. v SPINCERS
DRESS DESIGNS
(1936) CH D 400
The plaintiffs alleged that
defendants had infringed the
copyright in the sketch
described as frock being
worn by a young lady It was
also alleged that there was
infringement of artistic
copyrights in dresses made up
by the plaintiffs in
accordance with those
sketches, which dress
themselves were said to be
works of artistic
craftsmanship It was held
that thee was no infringement
of a sketch by a frock.
In MERLET v MOTHERCARE Ltd
(1986) RPC 115
The plaintiff made a prototype
baby cape for her child.
The cape was subsequently
manufactured by the second
plaintiff.
The defendants copied the
plaintiffs garments and made
baby cape in accordance with
the copy.
The plaintiff claiming the
handmade prototype garment
as a work of craftsmanship it
was not a work of artistic
craftsmanship brought an
action for infringement of
copyright.
It was held that though the
prototype was a work of
craftsmanship it was not a
work of artistic
craftsmanship.
It was held that in
approaching the question the
garment has to be
considered by itself and
neither as worn nor as
containing a baby.
No aesthetic satisfaction
unless worn on the baby
Action was dismissed. An
appeal against infringement
of certain drawings was
dismissed.
In MERLET v MOTHERCARE Ltd
(1986) RPC 115
KOMESAROFF v MICKLE
(1988) RPC 204
A product called (moving
sand pictures)
comprising a mixture of
liquid, colored sands,
and a layer of air
bubbles encased within
two glass panels was
held not a work of
artistic craftsmanship.
They are functional
not regd design
Cases
MERCANDISING CORPORATION v
HARPBOND(1983) FSR 32 P, 32 (Facial
make-up was not held a painting within
the meaning of sec 3 of the U.K.
copyright act.)

Ford Motor Co.1993 RPC 399
Vehicle parts are not subject matter of design because they
have no value in commerce except as part of a vehicle
Mirrors, seats, etc., were capable of registration as
substitution was possible without affecting shape of the
vehicle.
The distinction that seems to have been drawn is that there
are several parts which are mostly hidden and never seen, such
parts cannot be registered as designs.
However, parts and their circuits if in drawing form are
artistic works
George Hensher Ltd s. Restawile Upholstery
1975 RPC 31
Upholstered chairs & settees.
One prototype was evolved chairs were copied
from it and sold
Def. copied the chairs and hence the prototype
Trial Court granted injunction. Appeal court
dismissed the injunction. HL refused protection
George Hensher Ltd s. Restawile Upholstery
1975 RPC 31
Artistic craftsmanship need not necessarily mean
work of art.
The product may be a commercial success but
need not be of Art craftsmanship

Merchandising Corpn Vs. Harpbond
1983 FSR 32
Adam from the pop group Adam
& Ants
New look for himself with Red-
Indian face markings
Two red lines in grease paint,
light blue line in between, heart
over left eyebrow & a beauty
spot
Def. made a poster of it & made
a portrait & superimposed new
look over an old poster
In infringement action court
held that this is not a painting
and hence not protectable.
Animal Fair Inc., Vs. Amfesco Inds
227 USPQ 817 (1985)
Novelty slippers
Resembles a bears foot or
paw
Slippers design features
separate from its
utilitarian features, incl.
impractical width of sole,
shape of sole, profile of
slipper, toes which are
unrelated to function and
copyrightable.
Injunction granted.
CONCLUSION
Technological advancement made the
job of the creator easy
it also made the job of the
copier easy.

Consciousness in IPR is the only way
to prevent the latter.
THANK YOU