Riddhi Glass Works Ltd., a company engaged in manufacturing decorative glass sheets applied for registration of a particular ornamental pattern used on its glass products under the Designs Act, 2000. The company claimed

Answer 4(d) In the Design Act, 2000, the core distinction lies in how the law treats a products utility vis a vis its visual appearance. Functionality refers as to how a product works and solves technical problems. It is covered by Patent law which novel inventions, mechanical devices or new solutions to problems. Functionality ensures that the product does what it is supposed to do effectively, reliably and intuitively. It impacts user satisfaction with performance. Functional features cannot be generally protected by registered designs. Aesthetic originality refers solely to the visual and ornamental appeal of the product. Designs Act protects features of shape, configuration, pattern or ornamentation applied to an article that appeal to and are judged solely by the eye. It shapes how the user feels when interacting with the object. It creates distinct brand recognition and influences consumer choice by adding artistic or decorative value. The protection is typically granted only if these visual choices are not strictly necessary to achieve the product's function. In practice, designs often overlap function and aesthetics. A design that appeals to the eye will be excluded from registration only if its every feature is dictated solely by function. This is the case where there are limited ways to achieve a function. Consider a textured knife handle that improves grip. This may still qualify for protection if other visualy distinct patterns could serve the dame purpose. The law thus envisages a middle path to navigated on the basis of the facts. Where the functional features create different visual effect, such a design is eligible for protection. Let us look at the following case law. In the case of Relaxo Footwears Limited vs. Aqualite Industries Pvt. Limited (08.10.2021 - DELHC): CS (COMM) 190/2021 wherein Court stated that it is true that in case of footwear for novelty, footwear manufacturers have very little flexibility in creating new designs. But, it cannot be said that the Designs Act, 2000 does not apply to footwear. The defendant has relied upon the design to claim prior user of the plaintiff's design. A closer visual look shows that prima facie the nature of the design is not quite different when compared to that of the plaintiff. The claims of the defendant that the designs of the plaintiff lack originality or there being existence of prior art are issues which would require better examination and would be considered after evidence has been led. At this stage, the said pleas of the defendant prima facie cannot be accepted. The plaintiff has made out a prima facie case. Balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The defendant, its directors, etc. are restrained from using the said registered designs of the plaintiff or any other design that is deceptively similar to the designs of the plaintiff.