Skip to content

CS Executive · Economic, Commercial and Intellectual Property Laws · Law relating to Designs

Kiran Tools claims a 'design' for a hammer based on an internal gear arrangement that multiplies striking force, none of which is visible in the finished hammer. Under the definition in the Designs Act, 2000, why does the claim fail?

The claim fails because a design covers only visual features judged solely by the eye, and the definition expressly excludes any mode or principle of construction or a mere mechanical device. A hidden gear mechanism that multiplies force is functional, so it cannot be protected as a design.

  1. ADesigns must always be three-dimensional
  2. BThe definition excludes any mode or principle of construction or mere mechanical device, and requires features judged solely by the eyeCorrect
  3. CHammers are not an 'article' under the Act
  4. DA design cannot be applied by a mechanical process

Explanation

The definition of design requires features that in the finished article appeal to and are judged solely by the eye, and it excludes any mode or principle of construction or anything that is in substance a mere mechanical device. An internal force-multiplying gear arrangement is functional, not visual. Option A is wrong as two-dimensional designs are allowed.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Law relating to Designs shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Law relating to DesignsFree diagnostic mock

More Law relating to Designs questions