ASWAL ASSOCIATES- Intellectual Property Law firm India

 Summary The Delhi High Court granted summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC dismissing Novamax Industries' design infringement claim in respect of Design No. 322384-002, after pre-filing sales invoices and the plaintiff's own website were found to have published the cooler design several months before the design application was filed on 19 October 2019. Applying Section 19(1)(b) of the Designs Act, 2000, the Court held the design vulnerable to cancellation and found no real prospect of success on infringement. However, the Court declined to dismiss the passing off claim, holding that the plaint's averments on misrepresentation and likelihood of confusion required trial. The judgment reaffirms that a design proprietor's pre-filing commercial activity constitutes a fatal, self-inflicted bar to enforcement of the resulting registration, while confirming that passing off survives the collapse of the statutory infringement claim. Introduction Delhi  High Court , presided b...

1.   Introduction Section 8 of the Patents Act, 1970 (“the Act”) and the corresponding provisions of the Patents Rules, 2003 (“the Rules”), particularly Rules 12(1), 12(1A), 12(2), 12(3) and 12(4), impose a continuing obligation on patent applicants to keep the Controller of Patents informed about applications for the same or substantially the same invention filed in countries outside India. This obligation is discharged primarily through Form 3 — the Statement and Undertaking prescribed under the Act. Non-compliance with Section 8 remains one of the most frequently invoked grounds for pre-grant opposition, post-grant opposition, and revocation of a patent in India. A thorough understanding of the scope, timing, and content of this obligation is therefore essential for every patent practitioner. 2.   Section 8(1)(a) read with Rules 12(1) and 12(1A) — Initial Statement and Undertaking 2.1   Statutory Provision Under Section 8(1)(a) of the Act, read with Rule ...