Section-51A(1)(a)When a design is
registered prima facie it is presumed to be new and original. But entry in the register is not conclusive thereof and the presumption is rebuttable one. We have examined the sample, compared them and looked at their design as a whole and found that the design of the respondent is nothing but an imitation of the petitioner’s design. So, the design of respondent No.l is not a new or original one.  The respondent’s design is therefore, liable to be called on all the grounds stated in Section 51A(1)(a) of the Act.

Mr. Yar Mohammad Vs. Mr. Satadal Dhali 9 BLT (HCD)-31.


Has no locus standi-in the instant case the petitioner has utterly failed to show how he is an interested person in respect of a design relating to cycle and rickshaw parts inasmuch as he has failed to bring home his claim that he is a dealer of those parts or that at any point of time he manufactured them. In that view of the matter it appears that he has failed to fulfil the condition precedent for filing an application under section 51 of the Act. Moreover, on a perusal of the materials on record it appears that it has been finally established that the registered design bearing No.01010, dated 12.8.92 is a new and original one-application is rejected.

Md. Shahidullah Vs. Year Mohammad. 9BLT(HCD)-132.


It appears that the design of the respondent No.1 substantially resembles with the design of the petitioner, which is apparent in the neck eye. Therefore, it appears thatthe respondent No.1 by suppressing the fact that a similar design had alreadybeen registered as back as in 1994 obtained the registration of their design bycommitting a fraud upon the Controller of Designs. It further appears that therespondent No.2 also failed to discharge – the legal duties cast upon him andafter proper scrutiny failed to discover the fact that the design applied foralready registered.Thus, the registration given by the respondent No.2 in favourof the respondent No. 1 being registration No.01638 dated 14.5.96 in class-1 isneither a new nor an original design and it has previously been published inBangladesh and also registered by the petitioner in 1994. Thus the registereddesign No.01638 dated 14.5.96 is class-1 is liable to be cancelled.

Golam Rabbani Chowdhury Vs. Md. Izzat Ali Khan & Anr. 9BLT(HCD)-170.