Summary
In a design piracy case involving self-inking stamps, the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Trodat GmbH and its affiliate against an order that allowed Addprint India Enterprises to manufacture and market a redesigned stamp. The Court held that the proposed design did not amount to piracy under Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000.
Dispute over Design Infringement
Trodat, the proprietor of registered designs bearing numbers 272348 and 272349, marketed under the names “Flashy 6330” and “Flashy 6903,” had obtained an injunction restraining Addprint from using an earlier stamp design. In response, Addprint proposed an alternative version and sought judicial approval to manufacture it. The Single Judge, after examining the new product, found it visually distinct from Trodat’s registered designs and granted permission for production and sale, subject to strict conformity with the proposed configuration.
Trodat challenged this permission in appeal, alleging that the new design was an imitation that fell within the scope of piracy. It argued that the Court had erred by analysing individual elements of the design rather than assessing the article as a whole.
Informed Observer Test
After reviewing judicial precedents, the appellate Court reiterated the legal standard for design piracy—assessment through the eyes of an “informed Observer.” Unlike the average consumer test in trademark law, the Court stated that the informed observer is experienced in similar products and capable of identifying whether the allegedly infringing design creates a different overall impression. As per the Court, the informed observer is not concerned with memory or association but with perceptible visual difference in shape and configuration. Noting that the certificate of registration for Trodat’s designs specified novelty in shape and configuration, the Court stated that the Single Judge was justified in comparing specific structural features of the competing designs.
Visual Comparison and Findings
The Court recorded several distinctions between Trodat’s design and Addprint’s proposed product:
- A smoky glass panel at the top in Addprint’s product, contrasting with a clear glass top in Trodat’s.
- Two embossed lines on the side grip area of Addprint’s stamp, compared to four on Trodat’s.
- A flat base in Addprint’s version, against a recessed bottom with round embossed edges in Trodat’s.
- A dug-out rectangular shape on the front of Addprint’s top cover, different from the embossed configuration seen on Trodat’s product.
These differences, the Court held, were significant from the perspective of an informed observer. As per the Court, the redesigned product created a different overall visual impression and could not be considered a fraudulent or obvious imitation of the registered designs.
Scope of Appellate Interference
Reiterating settled principles, the Court observed that it would not interfere with discretionary orders passed at the interlocutory stage unless they were perverse or contrary to law. Even if another conclusion was possible, appellate intervention was unwarranted if the trial court’s decision was plausible and reasoned.
Based on its assessment, the Court dismissed the appeal, leaving the parties to contest the main suit on its merits.
Citation: Trodat GmbH & Anr. v. Addprint India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., FAO(OS)(COMM) 93/2025, CM APPL. 31020/2025 & CM APPL. 31021/2025 (H.C. Delhi, May 20, 2025). Available at: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/160097113/, Visited on: 11/06/2025.
