For a design to be called new or original under the Designs Act, 2000. (i) There should be some original mental application involved; and (ii) The design must be significantly distinguishable from known designs or combin

The Designs Act, 2000 incorporates the concept of 'absolute novelty'. In simple language, absolute novelty means that an invention is new if it has not been used or published anywhere in the world. The concept of absolute novelty aids in judging a novelty on the basis of prior publications of any article. For a design to be called new or original, there should be some original mental application involved. The novelty or originality of even a particular part of the article may be sufficient to call the design "novel or original", but this part must be a significant one and it must be potent enough to impart to the whole design a distinct identity. In Pental Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr. V. M/s Arora Stationers & Others , the Court held that a mere superficial difference in the design will not make the article new or original. It is pertinent to point out that only a unique design which is novel and original can be registered. However, a combination of two or more previously published designs can be registered only if the combination produces new visuals or designs. In Hello Mineral Water Pvt. Ltd. vs Thermoking California Pure (1999) , the dispute was concerning a water dispenser which was designed in a cylindrical shape. Delhi High Court held that mere form or shape is not sufficient for the purpose of novelty. The ultimate test is to consider the design with an instructed eye to locate the difference between the design previously published and the registered design. In B. Chawla & Sons vs Bright Auto Industries (1980) , the Delhi High Court observed that only slight differences existed between the two impugned designs presented before it. The Court further held that minor addition or alteration in shape which is a well-recognized shape of another product that exists in the market cannot provide such design the status of a new and novel design. The design must be significantly distinguishing from known designs, or combination of designs. What constitutes as "substantial novelty or substantial originality" is left to the interpretation of the design's office/courts. In the case of Simmons v Mathieson & Cold , the court held that there must be a mental conception expressed in a physical form which has not existed before, but has originated in the constructive brain of its proprietor and that must not be in a trivial or infinitesimal degree, but in a substantial degree.