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

CS Professional · Intellectual Property Rights - Law and Practice · PYQS · June 2026
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 that the pattern applied to the glass sheets was prepared using a special digital device with semiconductor integrated circuit. The distinctive visual feature on the glass sheet qualified for protection as a registered design and after obtaining registration, the company began manufacturing and selling the glass sheets with this design and marketed it under the name "Falcitab". Sometime later, Siddhi Glass Works Ltd., a company also engaged in manufacturing decorative glass sheets started manufacturing glass sheets with a similar appearance under the Trademark "Falcigo". Riddhi Glass Works alleged that its registered design had been copied and demanded that Siddhi Glass Works must stop manufacturing and selling the alleged infringing products. It also instituted a suit seeking a permanent injunction, contending that Siddhi Glass Works marketing their glass sheet under the name "Falcitab" bore a deceptively similar resemblance to its glass sheet under the trademark "Falcigo". It was asserted that the phonetic and structural similarity between the two marks created a substantial likelihood of confusion, thereby facilitating the possibility of passing off its product. Siddhi Glass Works Ltd., however, disputed the claim and filed a petition before the appropriate authority seeking cancellation of the design registration. It contended that the design in question was not new or original at the time it was registered because similar designs had already been published in a foreign catalogues and documents before the date of registration in India. They argued that these publications were accessible to the public and therefore amounted to prior disclosure of the design. Based upon the facts of the case, answer the following questions: Explain the infringement of layout-design and its exceptions under the Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act, 2000.

Answer & Explanation:

Answer 4(e) The Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout Designs Act, 2000 confers certain statutory rights on registration. It states that subject to the other provisions of this Act, the registration of a layout-design shall, if valid, give to the registered proprietor of layout-design the exclusive right to the use of the layout-design and to obtain relief in respect of infringement in the manner provided by this Act. Section 18 Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout Designs Act, 2000 provides for infringement. Infringement of a layout design occurs when someone unlawfully reproduces, imports, sells or commercially distributes a semiconductor layout (or an integrated circuit incorporating it) without the owner's authorisation. A registered layout design is infringed when a person who is not the registered owner (Proprietor) or an authorised registered user does the following acts: Unauthorised reproduction [Section 18(1)(a)] Reproduces the registered layout design either by incorporating it into a semiconductor integrated circuit or by other means whether the whole design or a substantial part of it is copied. Exception: There is no infringement if the copied part is not original as described in Section 7(2) of the Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout Designs Act, 2000 Unauthorised Commercial Dealings [Section 18(1)(b) Imports, sells or commercially distributes: the registered layout design itself a semiconductor integrated circuit containing that layout design an article containing such an integrated circuit Without having the right to do so under the Act However, the statute carves out certain exceptions that shall not constitute infringement of layout- design. The legally exempt actions include: Reverse Engineering for evaluation, analysis, research and teaching. Independent Creation : When a person using his independent intellect has created an identical layout design through his own creative effort, there is no infringement. Innocent Purchaser : Individuals who acquire an infringing semiconductor chip without actual or constructive knowledge and has no reasonable grounds to know that it contained an infringing layout design are exempt from liability for importing it before receiving notice the layout design is registered. Private/ Non-commercial use : Reproducing the design strictly for private and non-commercial use is exempt. Consent of Owner : When any person performs any reproduction or commercial exploitation with the written consent of the registered proprietor of the registered layout design, there is no infringement.

Topics: Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design

Open in Interactive Practice Hub · Full Practice Hub · Chapter Weightage · More in this subject

Related Questions in this Topic