Designs are not just decorative; they are commercial assets. Whether it’s the curves of a bottle, the ornamental patterns on a fabric, or the contours of a chair, each shape carries an economic value. In India, the law that protects such aesthetic features of a product is the Designs Act, 2000. Enacted to bring India’s design regime in harmony with global standards, especially the TRIPS Agreement, the Act aims to balance innovation with fair competition. But like many laws rooted in intellectual property, the Designs Act has seen its fair share of legal ambiguity and controversy.
What Does the Designs Act, 2000 Protect?
The Designs Act protects the features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or composition of lines or colors applied to any article by any industrial process or means. This must be judged solely by the eye, meaning the visual appeal of the design takes precedence. The design must be new or original and not previously published in India or elsewhere.
Importantly, the Act does not protect any mode or principle of construction, nor any feature dictated solely by function. This distinction—between form and function—is at the heart of many disputes. A design cannot be protected if it’s merely the result of how the product works. The focus is on visual appearance, not engineering.
Registration and Duration
Design registration under the Act provides the owner with exclusive rights to use and license the design for commercial purposes. The initial duration of protection is 10 years, which can be extended by five more, totaling a maximum of 15 years. After this, the design falls into the public domain.
Why Design Registration Matters
Design registration helps prevent unauthorized copying or imitation of products. It gives manufacturers an edge in the market by allowing them to protect their investment in product aesthetics. For example, in sectors like fashion, consumer goods, packaging, or furniture, visual appeal often drives consumer choice. Here, design becomes a business tool.
It also serves as an effective deterrent. A registered design allows the owner to sue for infringement, claim damages, and obtain injunctions against violators. In absence of registration, proving ownership and originality in court becomes cumbersome and uncertain.
Contours of Infringement
Infringement under the Designs Act occurs when someone, without consent, applies or imitates a registered design to any article for sale. The test is whether the design of the defendant’s article is substantially similar to that of the registered one. Courts rely on visual comparison—whether an average consumer would confuse the two products based on their external appearance.
However, complications arise when design overlaps with other branches of IP law, especially copyright and trademark. For instance, if a design has been registered under the Copyright Act as an artistic work, and later applied industrially, can it still enjoy both protections? The law attempts to avoid this duplication, but the lines often blur.
Exclusions and Grounds for Cancellation
Section 19 of the Act lays out the grounds for cancellation of a registered design. A design can be cancelled if:
- It has been previously published in India or any other country.
- It is not new or original.
- It is not registrable under the Act.
- It is not a ‘design’ under Section 2(d).
These provisions ensure that only genuine, novel designs are protected. But what counts as ‘novelty’? Is a slight tweak to a known design sufficient? The Act doesn’t quantify how much variation is enough, leading to frequent disputes.
The Controversial Crocs Case
A defining case under the Designs Act was Crocs Inc. USA v. Liberty Shoes Ltd. & Ors., which stirred significant debate on design infringement, originality, and prior publication.
Crocs, a US-based company, had registered its distinctive clog-like footwear design in India in 2004. It later filed multiple suits against Indian companies like Liberty, Relaxo, and Bata, alleging that their products copied Crocs’ registered design. The defendants challenged the validity of the design itself, arguing that it lacked novelty and had been published prior to its registration.
The matter reached the Delhi High Court and the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). In 2018, the IPAB cancelled Crocs’ registered design, holding that the design was already published prior to its Indian filing, on platforms like the Crocs website and US patent databases. The court noted that Crocs had itself admitted the design was made public in 2002, while the Indian registration came only in 2004.
The judgment underlined the principle that prior publication anywhere in the world destroys novelty, even if the design is new in India. The case revealed how global digital access affects IP protection and emphasized the need for speed in filing design applications in multiple jurisdictions.
While the decision was a win for Indian footwear makers, it sparked concerns about inconsistent enforcement. Critics pointed out that the burden of proving prior publication should not be excessively stringent and that registered designs deserve a presumption of validity unless convincingly disproved.
Intersection with Other Laws
One of the persistent tensions in Indian IP law is the overlap between the Designs Act and the Copyright Act. Under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, once an artistic work is reproduced more than 50 times by an industrial process, copyright protection ends, and design registration becomes mandatory. This ensures creators don’t unfairly benefit from both regimes simultaneously.
Similarly, trademarks may sometimes overlap with designs. For instance, the unique shape of a bottle (like Coca-Cola’s) might be registered both as a design and a trademark. However, the protection rationale differs: designs protect aesthetics, while trademarks protect brand identity. Indian courts have generally upheld the separation of these legal paths but recognized their possible convergence in commercial practice.
Need for Modernization
Despite its importance, the Designs Act remains underutilized in India. Compared to patents and trademarks, design registrations are fewer. One reason is lack of awareness, especially among small businesses and designers. Another is the slow pace of administrative and judicial processes.
Also, the Act lacks provisions for international registration. Unlike trademarks (which benefit from the Madrid Protocol), Indian design owners must file separately in each country. This discourages global protection and weakens competitiveness. Though India acceded to the Hague Agreement in 2019, the integration is not complete.
The Act also doesn’t sufficiently address digital designs. In a world of NFTs, 3D printing, and virtual models, the boundaries of design law are expanding. The existing definition of ‘article’ may not fully cover such intangible or interactive designs. Lawmakers must act swiftly to future-proof the statute.
Conclusion
The Designs Act, 2000, is more than just a legal text—it’s a framework to reward creativity and aesthetic innovation. It recognizes that beauty has value, and that value deserves protection. But like any law, its effectiveness lies in its interpretation, enforcement, and adaptability.
The Crocs case showed that rights holders must act diligently and respect procedural requirements, especially around novelty and prior disclosure. It also highlighted how Indian courts are willing to uphold fair competition when design rights are used to monopolize rather than innovate.
To keep pace with global trends, the Act needs more awareness, better enforcement, and a digital update. For designers and businesses alike, registering a design is no longer a luxury. It’s a strategic necessity. And for India, strengthening design protection could unlock a new era of creative enterprise
CONTRIBUTED BY: SAKSHAM TONGAR (intern)