Mumbai University Solved Question Papers
Law of Industrial Designs GI Layout Designs Data Protection and Trade Secrets
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
LLM · Group 3 Law of Intellectual Property and Information Technology
2019 Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
First published on munotes.in on 14 September 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of the University of Mumbai. It is not affiliated with the University of Mumbai, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by the University of Mumbai at the 2019 examination.
The law in these answers is stated as at September 2026, and four changes date most textbooks on this subject. The Intellectual Property Appellate Board was abolished with effect from 4 April 2021, so appeals under the Geographical Indications Act now lie to the High Court, while the Layout-Design Appellate Board was never constituted and its sections, like the provision naming that Board as a stand-in, were never brought into force, so that Act has no appellate body at all. Since 1 August 2024 falsely representing a geographical indication as registered has been a penalty imposed by an officer of the Registry rather than an offence. India acceded to the Locarno Agreement with effect from 7 September 2019. And the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 commences in stages, its main duties applying from 13 May 2027.
The questions below are the paper as the University of Mumbai set it at the 2019 examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2019 examination, reproduced as the University of Mumbai set them, in the order it set them. Nothing has been reworded, added or left out. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 100 · 14 questions answered
Instructions printed on the paper
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
Printer's form 60641, Page 1 of 1, the first paper on the scan, seven questions 100 Marks
Answer
For full marks, cover: three questions. WHY designs are protected: the investment in appearance, the goodwill a look carries, the public bargain of a short monopoly, the gap other rights leave, and the Paris and TRIPS obligations. The OBJECTS of the Act: two from its long title and the rest read from its provisions, set out against the sections that carry them. The GROUNDS OF CANCELLATION in section 19: who may petition, when and how, each of the five grounds with an illustration, appeal, and the use of the same grounds as a defence under section 22(3), with Bharat Glass Tube, Crocs, Reckitt Benckiser and Rajesh Masrani.
The question the law has to answer. A design right gives a manufacturer control over how a product looks, even though anyone else may make a product that works in exactly the same way. Five reasons justify that control.
First, appearance is an investment that copying destroys. A new look for a tyre, a bottle or an appliance costs research, drawings, prototypes and tooling before a single article is sold, and a rival can reproduce it from a purchased sample. In Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. Pioneer Trading Corporation, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9791, Apollo's registered tread pattern appeared on a rival's tyres; a trap purchase from a Delhi dealer, the cash memo and a side-by-side comparison of the treads were enough for the Delhi High Court to confirm an injunction with costs of fifty thousand rupees.
Second, a distinctive look carries goodwill. Buyers choose products by appearance and come to recognise a maker by it. In Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. Videocon Industries Ltd., 2014 (60) PTC 155 (Bom), the court granted interim relief against a washing machine that imitated Whirlpool's registered shape and configuration, rejecting the argument that a salesman's demonstration dispels confusion: a customer who knows a machine by its design may attend the demonstration believing he is being shown that machine.
Third, the public gets a fair bargain. The right is published and inspectable (sections 7 and 17), it lasts at most fifteen years (section 11), and then the design belongs to everyone. The law buys a steady supply of new designs with a short, visible monopoly.
Fourth, no other right fits. A patent needs a technical invention and a trade mark a badge of origin. Copyright in an artistic work survives industrial use only within the limits of section 15 of the Copyright Act, 1957. In Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited, 2025 INSC 483, the Supreme Court read the two statutes together: the original artistic work keeps its copyright, but its industrial application, the design, is protected only if registered.
Fifth, India is bound to protect designs. Article 5quinquies of the Paris Convention declares that industrial designs "shall be protected in all the countries of the Union". Article 26.1 of the TRIPS Agreement requires that the owner of a protected design be able to prevent others from making, selling or importing, for commercial purposes, articles bearing a copy or substantially a copy of it.
What the long title says. The Act's long title describes it as an Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to the protection of designs. That yields the first two objects. It CONSOLIDATES: section 48(1) repeals the Designs Act, 1911, and section 48(2) to (5) carries existing registrations and pending proceedings across. It AMENDS: the new law was written for a world market, worldwide novelty and the TRIPS Agreement, and it is arranged in eleven chapters running from definitions and registration to repeal and savings.
The further objects are written into the provisions. The Act contains no separate statement of purposes, but its sections show plainly what it sets out to do.
| Object | Provisions that carry it | How |
|---|---|---|
| Define exactly what is protected | sections 2(a), 2(d) | appearance applied to an article by industrial process; functional features, trade marks, property marks and artistic works excluded |
| Reward only real novelty, tested worldwide | sections 4, 5(1) | no registration of a design disclosed anywhere before the filing or priority date, or not significantly distinguishable |
| Grant a certain, limited right | sections 2(c), 5(6), 11 | exclusive right in the registered class, from the application date, for ten years plus five |
| Enforce it firmly but fairly | sections 15, 22, 23 | piracy sums or damages and injunction; invalidity as a defence; remedy against groundless threats |
| Object | Provisions that carry it | How |
|---|---|---|
| Keep the register honest | sections 10(4), 19, 29, 31 | cancellation at any time; rectification; correction of clerical errors |
| Join the international system | sections 21, 44; rule 10 of the Rules | exhibition protection; six-month convention priority; Locarno classification |
| Protect the public interest | sections 20, 35, 42, 46 | Government use; refusal on public order or morality; void tying conditions; security of India |
| Make administration accountable | sections 3, 36, 45 | the Controller-General as Controller; appeals to the High Court; annual report to Parliament |
How the objects fit together. They pursue one balance: a strong right for a short time over a narrowly defined subject. In his separate opinion in Micolube India Limited v. Rakesh Kumar, (2013) 199 DLT 740, Manmohan Singh J described the design right as a limited statutory monopoly, akin to a patent, whose avowed object is limited protection without unnecessary extension, so that on expiry the shape passes into the public domain.
Two objects show the balance at work. Section 44 gives an applicant who has filed in a convention country six months to file in India with the same date, matching the six-month design priority in Article 4C(1) of the Paris Convention. Section 42 makes void any condition in a sale or licence of a registered design that ties the buyer or licensee to other goods, and section 42(3) makes such a condition a defence to piracy, so the monopoly cannot be stretched to articles it does not cover.
Who, when and before whom. Section 19(1) allows ANY PERSON INTERESTED to petition the Controller AT ANY TIME AFTER REGISTRATION. A rival manufacturer or a trader threatened with a suit is interested; a mere busybody is not. There is no time bar, because a registration that should never have been granted harms the public for as long as it stands.
How the petition proceeds. Under rule 29 of the Designs Rules, 2001, the petition is filed in the prescribed form with a statement and evidence showing the petitioner's interest and the facts relied on. A copy goes to the registered proprietor, who may file a counter-statement with evidence; the petitioner may reply with evidence; and the Controller hears the parties and decides. The Controller has the powers of a civil court for evidence under section 32, and evidence is ordinarily given by affidavit under section 37.
Ground (a): the design has been previously registered in India. The same design already on the Indian register cannot be registered again for someone else. Only an Indian registration counts under this clause; a foreign registration matters only if it amounts to publication under clause (b). Section 6(3) protects the proprietor himself: registering his own design for further articles in the same class is not defeated by his earlier registration.
Ground (b): publication in India or any other country before the date of registration. The date of registration is the date of application (section 5(6)), or the convention date under section 44. In Crocs Inc. USA v. Bata India Ltd. (Delhi High Court, Division Bench, 24 January 2019), archived web pages, affirmed by an affidavit under section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872, showed Crocs' clog designs on another seller's website and on Crocs' own website before the priority date of 28 May 2003, so the registrations were prima facie liable to cancellation under section 19(1)(b).
What counts as publication. The publication must disclose the design itself. Crocs applied Rosedale Associated Manufacturers Ltd. v. Airfix Products Ltd., [1957] RPC 239: a reader of ordinary knowledge must be able to see the design in his mind's eye from the document. Earlier, in Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. v. Wyeth Ltd. (Delhi High Court, Division Bench, 8 October 2010), an injunction for a registered S-shaped spatula was refused because the design had been registered and published abroad first. The Division Bench disagreed with an earlier Delhi Division Bench that had followed the Calcutta High Court's view that a foreign office's publication of drawings is not in itself publication, and referred the effect of a foreign registration to a larger Bench.
Disclosures that do not count. Section 16 excludes disclosure in confidence or in breach of good faith and a first confidential order for a textile design; section 21 excludes exhibition at a notified exhibition followed by an application within six months; and section 44(2) excludes exhibition or publication in India during the convention priority period.
Ground (c): the design is not new or original. "Original" under section 2(g) means originating from the author, including old matter newly applied. In Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. v. Gopal Glass Works Ltd., (2008) 10 SCC 657, a petition to cancel a registered pattern for glass sheets relied on a German roller-maker's catalogue and a United Kingdom registration print-out. The Supreme Court upheld the registration, holding that the burden lies on the petitioner and that the finished article must be compared by the eye. A mere trade variation of a known design also fails this ground, as Crocs held of footwear.
Ground (d): the design is not registrable under the Act. This brings in the bars that are not about novelty: section 4(d) forbids a design comprising scandalous or obscene matter, and sections 5(1) and 35 forbid one whose use would be contrary to public order or morality.
Ground (e): it is not a design within section 2(d). Features that are a mode or principle of construction or in substance a mere mechanical device, trade marks, property marks and artistic works fall outside the definition. In Rajesh Masrani v. Tahiliani Design Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2009 Delhi 44 (DB), couture prints made in not more than twenty pieces were held artistic works, not designs. Cryogas adds a test of functional utility, looking to the dominant purpose of a work to decide whether it qualifies for protection as a design.
Appeal, reference and the effect of cancellation. Under section 19(2) an appeal lies to the High Court, within three months under section 36, and the Controller may refer a petition to the High Court for decision. A cancelled design leaves the register and the copyright in it ends. Section 31(5) confirms that rectification cannot achieve a section 19 cancellation.
The same grounds as a defence. Under section 22(3) every ground of cancellation is available as a defence to a suit for piracy, and section 22(4) then transfers the suit to the High Court. The Designs Act, 1911 was narrower: section 51A allowed cancellation only for prior registration or publication IN INDIA, or want of novelty, and a defendant could plead invalidity only once a cancellation petition was pending, as the Full Bench held in Metro Plastic Industries (Regd.) v. Galaxy Footwear, AIR 2000 Delhi 117.
Conclusion. Industrial designs are protected because a new appearance is a costly investment easily copied, because a distinctive look carries goodwill, because a short and public monopoly enriches the public domain, because no other right fits, and because Article 5quinquies of the Paris Convention and Article 26 of TRIPS require it. The Act's long title shows its objects of consolidation and amendment, and its provisions show the rest: a precise definition, worldwide novelty, a limited right, fair enforcement, an honest register, international alignment and the public interest. Under section 19 any person interested may petition at any time on five grounds: prior Indian registration, prior publication anywhere, want of novelty or originality, non-registrability, and not being a design. The burden lies on the petitioner (Bharat Glass Tube), publication must disclose the design (Crocs, Reckitt Benckiser), and every ground is also a defence under section 22(3).
The rest of the answers
You have read the paper as it was set and the first model answer in full. The remaining answers come with the bundle, along with every other solved paper for this semester.
See the semester for ₹798 Already bought it? Sign in
Or just the solved papers: ₹499
The question paper itself stays free, as does the syllabus and module one of every subject.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.
