DESIGN
Delhi High Court Bars Sale Of Water Purifiers Infringing 'KENT' Trademark And Design
The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of Kent RO Systems Ltd., restraining several entities from making or selling water purifiers that infringe its “KENT” trademark and registered design. In a judgment delivered on March 13, 2026, Justice Jyoti Singh recorded that the defendants did not appear to contest the case and were proceeded against ex parte. The material placed on record, the Court noted, showed that the plaintiffs' marks and design had been copied. The court pointed out that...
Graphical User Interfaces Not Automatically Excluded From Registration Under Designs Act: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court on Monday held that Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) are not automatically excluded from protection under the Designs Act and may qualify as registrable designs if they satisfy the statutory requirements. A GUI is the visual interface of a digital device or software that allows users to interact with it through icons, buttons and menus instead of typing text commands. A single bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur ruled that the Controller of Designs had adopted an...
Government Proposes Protection For Metaverse Designs, Virtual Products Under Designs Act
The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry has proposed bringing metaverse-based and other virtual designs within the scope of India's design protection law under amendments to the Designs Act, 2000. The proposal forms part of a concept note issued by the department on Friday and placed in the public domain for stakeholder consultation. DPIIT has invited comments within 30 days The concept note states that the Designs Act...
Madras High Court Orders Fresh Review of TVS Motor's Patent Plea For Scooter Frame Design
The Madras High Court has overturned a decision by the Patent Office that had denied TVS Motor Company a patent for its "vehicle frame assembly" invention. The court said the Patent Office did not properly examine how the design worked or whether it was truly obvious from earlier technologies.In its ruling dated November 28, 2025, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy said the refusal order did not provide enough reasoning to conclude that TVS Motor's invention lacked originality. Because the...