Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Rejection of ARS Steels' Plea To Cancel Rival TMT Bar Design Registration

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday set aside an order of the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting ARS Steels and Alloy International Private Limited's application to cancel the registered design of a double “XX-Rib” pattern on construction rods held by Souvik Steels Private Limited.

Holding the order unsustainable, the court said the Controller's finding that there was “no scope of enquiry” into similar products already being available in the market was “perverse.”

Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, in a judgment dated May 7, 2026, allowed ARS Steels' appeal. The matter has been remanded to a different officer for a fresh hearing to be completed within three months from communication of the order to the Controller.

Souvik Steels secured registration of the XX-Rib design on TMT bars on November 6, 2013. In early 2016, it issued an infringement notice to ARS Steels, prompting the latter to file a cancellation application under Section 19 of the Designs Act, 2000.

The Deputy Controller rejected the application on April 10, 2023. It held that the design was not in the public domain before registration, that prior publication had not been established, and that the design had aesthetic eye appeal rather than being purely functional.

ARS Steels challenged the decision before the High Court. It argued that both X-Rib and XX-Rib designs were already available in the market well before Souvik Steels' registration.

In support, ARS Steels relied on publications in the Indian Concrete Journal, Business Line and The Hindu. It also cited invoices showing X-Rib TMT rod sales dating back to 2003, along with evidence that both X-Rib and XX-Rib variants were already in market use before registration.

The court found that the Deputy Controller had failed to properly engage with this documentary evidence. It said the authority had also failed to apply the correct legal tests while examining novelty and originality.

The court also criticised the Deputy Controller for conflating novelty with aesthetic eye appeal. Justice Kapur noted that these are “separate and distinct concepts having different legal implications.”

The High Court also found the order deficient in light of an earlier Calcutta High Court ruling in SRMB Srijan Limited v. Triveni Industries Pvt. Ltd. In that case, an X-Rib design registration for TMT rods had been cancelled on the grounds of lack of novelty and prior publication, with the design found to have been in the market since 2001–2002.

The Deputy Controller had dealt with this precedent selectively, the court noted.

On functionality, the court acknowledged that a design with both functional and aesthetic attributes can still be registrable. However, it said this required a proper assessment of whether anything beyond purely functional considerations had driven the choice of the specific feature.

The court found the Deputy Controller's conclusion on functionality to be bereft of reasoning.

Remanding the matter, the High Court clarified that all its findings on merits are tentative. It said these observations would not bind the officer conducting the fresh hearing.