Avoidance Of Certain Restrictive Conditions Under Section 42 Of Design Act, 2000

A plan for organizing elements in the greatest possible way to achieve a specific goal is called Design. In general, a design refers to a product’s visible outer look to the naked eye. It reflects a person’s intelligence and creativity which is then turned into a product. A registered design

safeguards a product’s visual appearance and grants you the exclusive rights to that look to the degree that, if necessary, you have a legal right to prevent an unauthorized party from creating or utilizing your design.

Design_IPRThe Design Act was adopted by Indian Legislature on May 25, 2000 with the goal of consolidating and amending the country’s design protection Law. The major goal of Design Act is to safeguard original design so that the creator is not cheated out of his reward for producing them by those who replicate them for their own goods or products.

DESIGN – It refers to a product’s visible outer look to the naked eye.

LICENCE – A permission from the authority to own or use something, accomplish something specific or carry on business.

LICENSEE – Someone who have been given permission to sell or use something.

LICENSOR – A person or organization that grants permission to do or use something.

SECTION 22 – Section 22 of the design act explains about the piracy of the registered designs.

RESTRICTIVE CONDITIONS AND ITS AVOIDANCE UNDER DESIGN ACT

Section 42 of the Design Act explains about the restrictive conditions that are applied to the registered design and how to circumvent those conditions.

  • If a design is already registered for an article then it is not legal to enter in any contract for or related to the sale or leasing of that
  • It is not permissible to intrude in a licence for manufacturing or for use of an article for which design has been
  • It is not legal to intrude in a licence to package the article for which the design is already

These conditions could have some negative impact.

  1. It can prohibit the licensee/purchaser from purchasing the article from any other vendor than the licensor in any way or to any extent, or restrict him from acquiring any article other than the article for which a design is registered, except from the licensor or his
  2. It can also prohibit or limit the purchaser/licensee’s ability to use a product other than the one for which a design is registered that is not supplied by the licensor or his nominees and any such condition shall be

For Example: Let’s assume a brand ‘X’, who manufactures a unique shaped water bottles. And also it has registered a design regarding the same. Then only that brand would be able to sell or manufacture the bottle for which a design is registered. It will be prohibited if someone else use or manufacture the same bottle for which a design is registered. But that does not mean that brand X can prohibit the sale or use of bottles other than those for which a design is registered. It would be unlawful to prohibit someone from using or selling an article different than the one for which a design is registered.

If there would be any such other condition of the nature that is described above in (1) or (2) regarding the use or sale of the article other than the article for which the design has been registered, then such clauses are void ab initio in the interpretation of a contract, whether they are part of the licence agreement or “entered into independently, whether before or after the contract pertaining to the sale, lease or licence of the registered design”.

When a person has copied the article of which the design is registered and prosecuted for that act in violation of section 22, then it is a defence to show that there was a contract in force at the time of the infringement containing a restrictive conditions that has been deemed void under section 42 of Design Act. This does not apply if the plaintiff establishes to the court that the condition was put in the contract without his knowledge or approval and he was not the party to the contract at the time of the contravention.

Nothing in this section effects a contract provision prohibiting a person from selling products other than those of specific person. The restrictive conditions would be applied to only those articles for which a design is registered under the Design Act.

It doesn’t make a contract valid that would have been invalid if it weren’t for this section. This section has no bearing on a condition in contract for the lease or licence to use an article of which design has been registered, by which licensor reserves the right regarding the supply of new parts of the article for which a design is registered, or to put or keep it in repair.

The provisions of this section apply to the contracts concluded before the beginning of the act if and to the extent that any restrictions declared illegitimate by this section remain in effect one year after the commencement of the act.

CONCLUSION

This section lays down some conditions that needs to be avoided in order to make the contract valid regarding the concerned registered design. It is preferable to write an agreement in such way that none of the limiting conditions stated in section 42 leave any room for interpretation. So, before entrusting the agreement to the another party, necessary actions should be taken to ensure that the agreement is valid and enforceable.

Author: Kumar Rishabh – New Law College, Bharati Vidyapeeth University (Pune), in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

Leave a Reply

Archives

  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010