CASE ANALYSIS ON BHARAT GLASS TUBE LIMITED v.

GOPAL GLASS WORKS LIMITED:

FACTS:
The respondents – Gopal Glass Works – had registered their designs for diamond
shaped glass sheets under the Designs Act, 2000 and were granted a certificate of
registration for the same in the year 2002. The respondents therefore acquired the
sole right to manufacture and market the glass sheets in the design that was
registered in their names. The appellant however started marketing his glass
sheets with the same design. The designs that were formed on the glass sheets
were formed by engraved rollers which were developed by a German Company
which had licensed all Indian rights to the respondent.
On learning that the appellants were manufacturing glass sheets in the same
protected design the respondents moved Court for an interim injunction which
they were granted following which the appellants moved the Asst. Controller of
Patents for cancellation of the respondents design on the ground that it already
been published by the German Company in the year 1992 as was evidenced by a
letter produced from the German Company and also that the design had been
published on the website of the U.K Patent Office by another company which had
sought for design protection. The respondents countered by pointing out that the
German Company manufactured only the engraved rollers and not the glass
sheets. They contended that the engraved rollers could then be applied to a wide
variety of material from glass sheets to plastic and that their registration for
design protection under Class 25-01 was for the application of that design to glass
sheets.
The Asst. Controller of Patents found merit in the appellant’s contentions that the
respondents design was not new or original since the German company had been
manufacturing the engraving rollers with the same design since 1992 and also
because the design had already been published in the U.K. Patent Office Website
by another German Company and thus the registration of the respondent’s design
was canceled since it did not meet the requirements of originality laid down by
Section 4. When the matter went on appeal to the High Court the single judge
over-ruled the Asst. Controller of Patents and restored the design to the
respondents. The Appellants then appealed against this decision to the Supreme
Court.
ISSUES:
(i) Whether the design was not new or original in view of the fact that the roller
bearing the design is published before the date of registration and the registered
proprietor is not owner of design.
(ii) Whether the design was published outside India as well as in India prior to the
date of application.
(iii) Whether the registered design was in public domain due to sale/use of the
design prior to the date of application of the registered proprietor.
JUDGEMENT OF SUPREME COURT:
1. There is no evidence whatsoever produced by the complainant either before the
Assistant Controller or before any other forum to show that the design which has
been reproduced on the glass sheet was manufactured anywhere in the market in
India or in United Kingdom.
2. This proprietorship of this design was acquired by this respondent from the
German company. Therefore, he has the right to register the same in India.
3. No evidence was produced by the complainant before the Assistant Controller
that anywhere in any part of the world or in India this design was reproduced on
glass or it was registered anywhere in India or in any part of the world.
Therefore, this design is new for glass and the same is new and original one.
4. Finally Supreme Court also declined to consider the documents which have been
downloaded from the UK Patent Office website.
CONCLUSION:
While deciding this case, the court only considered as to whether the said design is
reproduced in the glass sheet before making an application in India. However it
did not consider whether the said design can be protected in India or not. In this
aspect, the Registrar rightly cancelled the respondent registration on the
application of this appellant.
It can be very well concluded that the said design is in public domain as far as
India is concerned. Therefore, the same should be made available to the public for
their free use. Since the appellant is a member of the public, He is free to make use
of a design which is in public domain. There is nothing wrong to use the same
design which was being used by the respondent. From the above discussion, it can
be concluded that the decision of the Supreme Court appears to require
reconsideration.

-VISHNU M S
VBBALLB’A’