Skip to content

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

Meera Textiles holds a registered design for a saree border pattern and its copyright in the design subsists. Rohan, without any licence or written consent, applies an obvious imitation of the pattern to sarees, which he makes for the purpose of sale. Under the Designs Act, 2000, Rohan's act is:

Rohan commits piracy. While copyright in the registered design subsists, applying the design or any fraudulent or obvious imitation to articles in the registered class for the purpose of sale, without the proprietor's licence or written consent, is unlawful. An exact copy and an actual sale are not needed.

  1. ALawful, because only an exact copy of the design is prohibited
  2. BPiracy of the registered design, because applying a fraudulent or obvious imitation for sale without consent is prohibitedCorrect
  3. CLawful, because the sarees were not yet sold to anyone
  4. DPermitted if Rohan informs the Controller in writing

Explanation

Section 22(1)(a) bars applying the design or any fraudulent or obvious imitation to articles in the registered class for the purpose of sale, without the licence or written consent of the proprietor. An obvious imitation is covered, so the exact-copy argument fails. Actual sale is not required, since the purpose of sale suffices.

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.

More Law relating to Designs questions