Summary
This article compiles the most impactful industrial design law developments in India during 2025. It analyses landmark court decisions shaping design protection, novelty, infringement, and coexistence with other IP rights.
Industrial design protection, though often overlooked in discussions of intellectual property, plays a crucial role in safeguarding the aesthetic aspects of products. In order to appreciate the significance of design rights, one must understand that they occupy a unique position, distinct from both patents (which protect functional innovations) and copyrights (which protect artistic expression). The year 2025 brought several judicial pronouncements that clarified these boundaries, addressing the distinction between copyright and design protection, the coexistence of passing off remedies with registered design rights, novelty requirements and the impact of prior disclosure, the difference between design and patent infringement, and the application of the informed observer test.
This compilation brings together some of the most significant industrial design-related articles from Intellepedia that resonated with our readers over the past year. Each addresses principles and precedents that offer guidance for product designers, manufacturers, and IP practitioners navigating the design protection landscape. The articles are presented below with expanded summaries to facilitate understanding of these important developments.
Featured Industrial Design Articles
Copyright Vs Design Protection: Supreme Court’s Purely Artistic and Functional Utility Tests
Published: 16 April 2025 | Author: Dr. Kalyan Kankanala
The Supreme Court of India established a two-pronged test for determining whether creative works receive copyright or design protection in a landmark judgment that provides clarity to a long-debated question. In Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited, the court addressed the overlap between India’s Copyright Act (1957) and Designs Act (2000). The case involved proprietary engineering drawings for cryogenic semi-trailers. One party claimed copyright protection, while the other argued the designs should fall under design law instead, which offers limited protection after fifty industrial reproductions.
The court established a methodical approach: First, determine if a work is ‘purely artistic’ (copyright-eligible) or a ‘design’ subjected to industrial processes. Second, if not qualifying as artistic work, apply a ‘functional utility’ test to assess whether protection exists under design law. The decision provides much-needed clarity distinguishing aesthetic expression from functional industrial application. For manufacturers and designers, this judgment offers a framework for understanding which form of protection applies to their creations, and underscores the importance of strategic decisions about IP protection at the design stage rather than after disputes arise.
Delhi High Court Revives Crocs’ Passing Off Suits Against Bata, Liberty Over Shape Trademark
Published: 15 July 2025 | Author: Gaurav Mishra
The Delhi High Court’s Division Bench on 1 July 2025 reinstated Crocs Inc.’s passing off lawsuits against Indian footwear manufacturers including Bata and Liberty Shoes, reversing a 2019 dismissal that had appeared to limit remedies for product shape protection. The court determined the suits were maintainable and that common law passing off protections coexist with registered design rights. Crocs had filed these cases after discovering Indian competitors allegedly manufacturing shoes mimicking Crocs’ distinctive shape featuring ventilation holes and a signature strap. The company claimed to hold immense goodwill through extensive marketing and sales of its recognisable clog design, registered as Design No. 197685 in India.
The Division Bench clarified that passing off remains a standalone common law tort, explicitly preserved under trademark law and functions independently from statutory design protections. This distinction allows companies to pursue passing off claims based on consumer deception, provided they establish sufficient goodwill. The judgment is particularly significant for product designers and manufacturers whose distinctive product shapes may be copied by competitors, it confirms that design registration and passing off claims can operate as complementary remedies rather than mutually exclusive alternatives.
Atomberg Fans or Luker Fans, Whose Fan Are You?
Published: 31 July 2025 | Author: Gaurav Mishra
The Bombay High Court rejected Atomberg Technologies’ appeal seeking an injunction against competitor Luker Electric Technologies in a ceiling fan design dispute, delivering a judgment that underscores the strict requirements for design protection. The court determined that Atomberg’s registered Renesa fan design lacked the required novelty for protection. The core issue centred on whether Atomberg’s design was genuinely innovative. The court found evidence of prior publication through Atomberg’s own August 2018 social media posts and sales documents depicting similar fans under the ‘Gorilla Renesa’ brand name, predating the formal September 2018 design registration.
This prior disclosure invalidated the design’s novelty claim under India’s Designs Act, which requires that designs be new and original at the time of registration. Additionally, the court ruled the design constituted merely a ‘trade variant’ of existing fan designs, with distinguishing features being trivial rather than significant. The court emphasised that registration value is diluted if prior disclosure is evident. This case serves as a cautionary tale for businesses: premature public disclosure, even through marketing materials or social media, can undermine design registrations, and companies must coordinate their IP filing strategies with product launch timelines.
Patent Upheld, Design Dismissed: Dura-Line vs. Jain Irrigation
Published: 17 June 2025 | Author: Sowmya S Murthy
In a May 2025 Delhi High Court decision that illustrates the distinct nature of patent and design protection, the court found that Jain Irrigation infringed Dura-Line’s patent for non-metallic pipes with co-extruded tracer cables, but rejected claims regarding design infringement. The court determined that Jain Irrigation’s ‘Insta Tracer’ product copied the essential features of Dura-Line’s patented technology. The judge noted that infringement was established when all essential features of the claim were present in the impugned product, even if individual elements existed separately or minor variations appeared.
However, the court dismissed Dura-Line’s design infringement claim, highlighting a crucial distinction: design protection requires visual similarity, not functional copying. The court found the products differed in surface morphology and edge geometry, meaning they didn’t appear deceptively similar to consumers despite sharing the same functional technology. Since the patent had already expired, no injunction could be granted, but the court allowed Dura-Line to pursue an account of profits for past infringement. This judgment reinforces that design and patent protection serve different purposes, patents protect how something works, while designs protect how something looks, and copying functionality without visual similarity does not constitute design infringement.
Design Piracy and Self-Inking Stamps: How the Informed Observer Test Saved Addprint
Published: 13 June 2025 | Author: Dr. Kalyan Kankanala
The Delhi High Court dismissed Trodat GmbH’s appeal challenging permission granted to Addprint India Enterprises to manufacture a redesigned self-inking stamp, in a judgment that clarifies the standard for assessing design infringement. Trodat held registered designs (272348 and 272349) for stamps marketed as ‘Flashy 6330’ and ‘Flashy 6903’, and had previously obtained an injunction against Addprint’s original design. In response, Addprint proposed an alternative version. The Single Judge approved it after examining the new product and finding it visually distinct from Trodat’s designs. Trodat appealed, claiming the redesign still constituted piracy.
The appellate Court applied the ‘informed observer’ standard for assessing design infringement- a test that differs significantly from trademark law’s average consumer standard. The informed observer is experienced in similar products and capable of identifying whether the allegedly infringing design creates a different overall impression without relying on memory or association, focusing instead on perceptible visual difference in shape and configuration. This decision is instructive for design holders and potential defendants alike: it demonstrates that redesigned products can escape infringement liability if they present sufficiently different visual impressions to an informed observer, even when inspired by protected designs.
Court Grants Ex-Parte Order in Favour of Designer Gaurav Gupta
Published: 7 October 2025 | Author: Intellepedia
The Delhi High Court ruled decisively against trademark and design infringement, awarding a permanent injunction and damages to fashion designer Gaurav Gupta. The defendant had been manufacturing and selling counterfeit replicas of Gaurav Gupta’s original garment designs through online channels, including YouTube and social media platforms. The case centred on unauthorised use of the ‘GAURAV GUPTA’ trademark and copying of registered apparel designs.
According to court findings, the defendant operated a YouTube channel called ‘Designer Salem’ whilst using Gaurav Gupta’s name in video titles and descriptions to deceive consumers searching for authentic products. The court determined that because the defendant failed to respond to the lawsuit despite proper service, summary judgment was appropriate. The evidence demonstrated that replicas were deceptively identical, differing only in colour from the original designs. The judge awarded Rs. 5,00,000 in damages. This case illustrates the effectiveness of IP enforcement against online counterfeiters and highlights the importance of monitoring digital channels for design infringement.
Indian IP Office Rolls Out Utility for Patent, Design, Trademark, Copyright and GI Statistics
Published: 22 April 2025 | Author: Intellepedia
The Indian IP Office unveiled an online dashboard providing unified data on intellectual property filings across the nation. Accessible at ipindia.gov.in/dashboard, the platform presents real-time statistics on filings and registrations for patents, designs, trademarks, copyrights, and geographical indications through interactive visualisations. The dashboard organises data by IP category, enabling users to examine filing volumes, compare submission methods, and review trends.
The Designs section displays application and registration trends with geographic breakdowns, allowing practitioners and researchers to analyse design filing patterns across Indian states and over time. The platform includes a notable disclaimer that the data is under update and may be provisional. For design practitioners and businesses considering design registration strategies, this tool provides valuable insights into filing trends and registration success rates across different product categories and geographic regions.
Business Potential of Industrial Design in India – An Unexplored Goldmine
Published: 25 June 2025 | Author: Gaurav Mishra
This article explores how Indian businesses overlook industrial design as a strategic intellectual property tool, despite its significant commercial potential. Industrial design refers to the creation of new and original features of shape, configuration, surface pattern, ornamentations and composition of lines or colours applied to articles. This encompasses everything from a vehicle’s dashboard curves to the ergonomic grip of a water bottle-elements that influence user satisfaction and product identity.
Despite being the world’s fourth-largest economy, India significantly underutilises design registration. Between 2015 and March 2025, only 183,000 design applications were filed nationally. Design registration offers compelling benefits over patents: lower costs (Rs. 10,000–Rs. 50,000), easier registration requirements focusing on novelty rather than inventiveness, and ten-year protection periods (renewable for five additional years). For businesses seeking cost-effective IP protection for product aesthetics, design registration represents an underutilised opportunity that merits greater strategic consideration.
Can You Copyright a Product Photo When Design Is Registered? Madras HC Clarifies
Published: 18 November 2025 | Author: Intellepedia
The Madras High Court recently clarified that a photograph of a product can receive copyright protection even when the underlying product design is already registered under the Designs Act. The case involved a dispute between two parties: one held a registered design for a pump assembly (registered in 2019), whilst the other obtained copyright registration for a photograph of that same pump assembly (registered in 2023). The design holder sought to expunge the copyright registration, arguing that Section 15 of the Copyright Act prohibits copyright in designs that are already registered.
The court ruled that the photograph is not a ‘design’ under the Designs Act because a design requires features like shape or configuration applied to an article, whereas a photograph is simply a captured image. Since the photograph itself doesn’t qualify as a design, Section 15 of the Copyright Act doesn’t apply. The two intellectual property rights protect entirely different subject matter. This decision provides important clarity for businesses using product photography—the copyright in photographs remains separate from any design rights in the depicted products.
Court Orders Transfer of Design Cancellation Petition from Controller’s Office
Published: 5 November 2025 | Author: Intellepedia
The Madras High Court directed the Controller of Patents and Designs in Kolkata to transfer a pending design cancellation petition to the court itself. This consolidation allows the cancellation proceedings to be heard alongside a related passing-off lawsuit already pending in Chennai’s Intellectual Property Division. The case involved applicants Arun R and others who filed a passing-off suit against M/s Integray Health Care alleging deceptive similarity in a ‘Carbon Fibre Cervical Extension’ product design.
Simultaneously, they petitioned the Controller to cancel the defendant’s design registration (Design No. 400027-001). These parallel proceedings-one in Chennai and one in Kolkata, prompted the applicants to seek consolidation. The court ruled that consolidation was permissible under the Madras High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022. The decision aligned with Supreme Court precedent favouring centralised proceedings when parties share common location to prevent duplicative litigation. This ruling provides procedural guidance for parties facing parallel design proceedings across different forums.
Looking Ahead
The industrial design-related developments of 2025 reflect the continuing refinement of design protection principles in India. From the Supreme Court’s clarification of the copyright-design boundary to the application of the informed observer test, from the coexistence of design rights with passing off remedies to the strict requirements of novelty, the year’s decisions provide important guidance for those engaged with product design and manufacturing. However, it is worth noting that design protection, like other forms of intellectual property, depends on careful strategic planning and timely action.
For product designers, manufacturers, and IP practitioners, staying informed of these developments is essential for effective design protection strategies. The decisions covered above have direct implications for design registration timing, enforcement approaches, and the coordination of design rights with other forms of IP protection. We at Intellepedia remain committed to providing comprehensive, accessible, and timely coverage of industrial design law developments, and we are grateful to our readers for their continued engagement with our work.
In order to stay updated on future industrial design law developments, readers may consider bookmarking Intellepedia and visiting regularly for our latest posts. As always, the articles are intended for informational purposes, and specific legal advice should be sought from qualified professionals for individual matters.