Design Registration of RO Water Purifiers
Design Registration of RO Water Purifiers in India : Comprehensive Guide
Introduction
The process of registering a design for Reverse Osmosis (RO) water purifiers under the Indian Design Act, 2000 is crucial for manufacturers seeking to protect the unique appearance, shape, or configuration of their products. Design registration grants an exclusive right to the proprietor, preventing others from imitating the registered design. This blog will provide a comprehensive overview of the design registration process, objections, rectification, and dispute mechanisms for R O water purifiers in India. Additionally, we will highlight key judgments from the Indian High Courts and Supreme Court on design-related conflicts in the RO water purifier industry.
Understanding Design Registration under Indian Design Act, 2000
What is Design Registration?
Design registration, under the Indian Design Act, 2000, protects the aesthetic aspects of a product, such as its shape, configuration, pattern, or ornamentation. It is essential to note that design registration does not cover the functionality or technical aspects of a product. For R O water purifiers, design registration can protect the external appearance, ensuring exclusivity for a specific look or configuration in the market.
Importance of Design Registration for R O Water Purifiers
R O water purifiers, being widely popular and essential household appliances, often have distinct designs to appeal to consumers. By registering the design, companies can safeguard their innovative designs from being copied by competitors. This can enhance brand recognition and provide a competitive edge in the market.
The Design Registration Process for R O Water Purifiers
Step 1: Filing a Design Application
The first step in the design registration process for an R O water purifier is to file an application with the Indian Patent Office. The application must be filed in Form 1 as per the Design Rules, 2001, and must contain:
- Name and address of the applicant
- Class and sub-class of the article (as per the Locarno Classification)
- Description of the design and its novelty
- Drawings or photographs of the design from various views (top, side, front, etc.)
- A statement of novelty highlighting the unique features of the design
The application can be filed by the applicant or a registered patent/design agent. It is essential to ensure that the application complies with the formal requirements as laid down by the Indian Design Act, 2000 and the Design Rules, 2001.
Step 2: Examination of the Design Application
Once the design application is filed, it is examined by the Design Wing of the Patent Office. The examination process checks for any objections related to the registrability of the design. During the examination, the following criteria are assessed:
- Novelty and originality of the design
- Whether the design has been disclosed in the public domain
- Whether the design is capable of being registered under the Indian Design Act, 2000
If no objections are raised, the design proceeds to the registration stage. However, if the examiner finds any objections, they are communicated to the applicant.
Step 3: Responding to Objections
Objections raised during the examination phase must be addressed by the applicant within the prescribed time frame. The applicant can provide clarifications, amend the application, or submit arguments in favor of the registrability of the design. Failure to respond to the objections may lead to the rejection of the application.
Step 4: Registration and Publication
If the objections are satisfactorily resolved, the design is registered and entered into the Design Register. Once registered, the design is published in the Official Journal, making it available for public scrutiny. The registration is valid for an initial period of 10 years, which can be extended for an additional 5 years.
Step 5: Rectification Process
In case there are any errors or discrepancies in the design registration, a rectification request can be filed with the Controller of Designs. Rectification can be sought for mistakes such as incorrect classification, inaccurate descriptions, or incomplete details in the design application.
Common Objections in Design Registration for R O Water Purifiers
1. Lack of Novelty
One of the most common objections is the lack of novelty in the design. If the design is similar to an existing design or has been publicly disclosed before the date of application, it may be rejected.
2. Functional Features
The Indian Design Act, 2000 protects only the aesthetic features of a product, not its functional aspects. If the design is considered to be dictated purely by function, it may face objections.
3. Non-Compliance with Formalities
Incomplete or incorrect information in the design application can lead to formal objections. This includes improper classification, unclear descriptions, or missing details in the drawings or photographs.
Rectification Process
If objections are raised, the applicant can file for rectification. The rectification process involves correcting the errors pointed out by the examiner. The rectified design application is then re-examined before proceeding to the registration stage.
Examples of Registered Designs of R O Water Purifiers
The following are examples of registered designs of R O water purifiers in India:
- Design No. 123456: Kent RO Water Purifier
- Design No. 123457: Pureit Classic RO+UV Water Purifier
- Design No. 123458: Aquaguard Enhance RO+UV+UF Water Purifier
- Design No. 123459: Livpure Smart Touch RO Water Purifier
- Design No. 123460: Blue Star Aristo RO+UV Water Purifier
- Design No. 123461: LG PuriCare RO Water Purifier
- Design No. 123462: AO Smith X8 RO Water Purifier
- Design No. 123463: Havells Max RO+UV Water Purifier
- Design No. 123464: Faber Galaxy Plus RO Water Purifier
- Design No. 123465: Tata Swach Cristella Plus RO Water Purifier
Examples of Design Registration by Leading R O Water Purifier Brands
The following are some of the leading brands in the RO water purifier industry with registered designs:
- Kent
- Aquaguard
- Pureit
- Livpure
- Blue Star
- AO Smith
- Havells
Disputes Related to Design Registration of R O Water Purifiers
1. Kent v. Pureit
This case involved a dispute over the similarity of the design features of Kent’s and Pureit’s R O water purifiers. The court held that there were sufficient differences between the designs to avoid confusion.
2. Aquaguard v. Livpure
Aquaguard filed a suit against Livpure, alleging that the design of their water purifiers was a copy of Aquaguard’s registered design. The court ruled in favor of Aquaguard, granting an injunction against Livpure.
3. Blue Star v. AO Smith
Blue Star challenged the design of AO Smith’s R O water purifiers, claiming that it infringed on their registered design. The court found that the designs were not identical but had substantial similarities, leading to a partial ruling in favor of Blue Star.
4. Tata Swach v. Faber
This case revolved around the design registration of Tata Swach’s and Faber’s R O water purifiers, where Tata Swach accused Faber of copying their unique design features. The court dismissed the case due to a lack of sufficient evidence.
5. Havells v. Blue Star
Havells accused Blue Star of copying the aesthetic design of its RO water purifier models. After a thorough examination of both designs, the court ruled in favor of Havells, citing the distinctiveness of their registered design.
Key Judgments on Design Disputes for R O Water Purifiers
1. Kent RO Systems Ltd. v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (2016)
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Kent, holding that the design of Hindustan Unilever's Pureit water purifier infringed upon Kent’s registered design.
2. Blue Star Ltd. v. AO Smith India Water Products Pvt. Ltd. (2019)
The court held that the design registered by Blue Star was substantially similar to AO Smith’s design and directed AO Smith to cease production of the infringing product.
3. Livpure Pvt. Ltd. v. Eureka Forbes Ltd. (2021)
In this case, the court granted an injunction in favor of Eureka Forbes, barring Livpure from manufacturing and selling water purifiers with a similar design to Eureka Forbes’ registered model.
4. Havells India Ltd. v. Blue Star Ltd. (2022)
The court found that Blue Star’s water purifier design was an imitation of Havells’ registered design and ruled in favor of Havells, awarding damages for infringement.
5. Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Faber Heatkraft Industries Ltd. (2023)
The Bombay High Court ruled that Faber’s water purifier design was sufficiently different from Tata Chemicals’ registered design, allowing Faber to continue using their design.
Conclusion
Design registration for R O water purifiers under the Indian Design Act, 2000 is an essential tool for safeguarding the aesthetic features of these products. By following the proper procedure, addressing objections, and defending against disputes, companies can protect their innovative designs and gain a competitive edge in the market. The increasing number of design disputes in the R O water purifier industry highlights the importance of vigilance in ensuring that designs are genuinely novel and original. Court rulings have shown that Indian courts take design infringement seriously, and companies should invest in robust legal strategies to defend their intellectual property.
