With newly amended Design rules, will India keep up the pace with other global countries?

The Indian Design Act 2001 with some significant changes incorporated in the Amendment Rules, 2008 is serving its purpose well to keep pace with the rapid changes in the technology and international developments. In view of the globalization of the economy, India is becoming a major hub in the field of industrial designs and Indian Design Law and its administration is suitably aligned with the changed technical and commercial scenario and conforms to international trends in design administration.

The Design Wing of the Indian Patent Office has taken some bold steps and corrective measures to streamline the procedure in the Design Wing and to make the system more transparent and efficient. As per Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks, complete automation of the Designs Wing is in progress and the entire process will be made fully e-enabled shortly, which will result in provision of online availability of the status of application, Register of Designs and file documents. E-filing of Design Applications and further documents will be introduced soon.

The Design Wing has also come out with a Manual to provide detailed information to the public and users of Design Registration System on the practice and procedures followed by Designs Wing of the Indian Patent Office, for processing of Design Applications and other related procedures. It is pointed out by the Design Wing that 90% of the applications are objected to at the time of examination based on formality issues only. Very few applications are objected on substantive grounds such as novelty and originality. The Wing has observed that in majority of cases the delay in registration of design is mainly due to faulty filing which can be avoided by adhering to proper filing procedures. The Designs Wing expects to register a properly filed Design Application within a period of three months from the date of filing.

Though the prosecution of a Design Application is done only at Patent Office, Kolkata, The Designs Act and Rules provide for filing of a Design Application in any of the four Patent Offices i.e. Patent Office Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai or Kolkata.

Following are some pointers that need to be kept in mind to avoid formality rejections:

  1. Instead of naming the views as “Front Elevation View”, the Design Office requires the naming to be simple and convention such as “Front View”. Similarly, instead of using “Bottom Plan View”, “Bottom View” should be written.
  1. Below the signature of the Agent, the Applicant/Agent must write the name of the signatory.
  1. No exploded views should be illustrated in any of the designs. Only the article as a single constructional piece should be included.

Views such as below therefore would not be accepted by the Design Office.

  1. No extraneous matter should be added into any of the design representation and all the views should only represent the article under consideration. Views such as below would therefore not be accepted at the Design Office as the view includes extraneous matters/articles which are not under the subject of design protection.

  1. Name of the article should be very simple and self-explanatory. For instance instead of naming the article as “Multi-Roll Retractable Mast System”, the name should be put across simply such as “Equipment for Target Acquisition”.
  1. Both the Disclaimer paragraphs namely “No claim is made by virtue of this registration in respect of any mechanical…” and “No claim is made by virtue of this registration to any right to the exclusive”, should be written in separate paragraphs.
  1. In case objections are received relating to clarity of title, while responding to the Office Action with simple and revised titles, we should also write the structural functionality of the article in the response to Office Action for clarity of the end of examiner as to the purpose of the article.
  1. Finally, the best way to respond to Office Actions is to discuss the objections with the concerned examiners at the Design Office and understand their expectations from the Objections so that an appropriate response can be prepared. Fortunately, the present Design Examiners are doing a great job in clarifying concerns and queries regarding the Office Action and adhering to the strict Six-Month deadline for deciding the fate of the Application.
  1. Examiners can also be very conveniently reached through emails at controllerdesign.ipo@nic.in, which are responded back very promptly.
  1. Following is a snapshot of the specimen sheet for a granted Design Application:

We hope the above discussed guidelines would help the Applicants in filing Applications which do not receive formality or minor subject matter clarity rejections and this step would help bring down the overall Office Action percentage considerably from 90%. We would be happy to have more of such practices for the readers so that a stakeholder guideline can be prepared as a checklist for all future applications.

About the Author: Mr. Mohinder Vig, Senior Trademark Attorney in Institute of Intellectual Property Research & Development (IIPRD) and can be reached: iiprd@iiprd.com.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

five × 3 =

Archives

  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010