Patents and Designs Act, 1911


Patents and
Designs Act [II of 1911] 

Section 2(5)—

A design to
be registrable need not also possess artistic merit but it must be new in
itself. The novelty or originality of a design is judged solely by the eye with
reference to the external appearance of the finished articles to which the
design applied.

Fans Ltd vs Md Firoz and another 50 DLR 437.


Section 51A—

For the
purpose of cancellation it is not necessary for the respondent’s design to be
exact reproduction or copy of the petitioner’s design to the minutest detail.
It will be enough if they appear to be two species of the same design.

Fans Ltd vs Md Firoz and another 50 DLR 437.


Section 51A—

By reason of
registration the proprietor may claim protection under the act. But entry in
the register is not conclusive thereof and the presumption can be rebutted.

Fans Ltd vs Md Firoz and another 50 DLR 437.


Section 51A—

before this Court being a counter-blast of the notice issued for and on behalf
of opposite party and when the petitioner has not approached this court with
clean hands he is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.

Khaleque vs National Fans Ltd & another 50 DLR 453.


Section 51A—

No design
shall be accounted new or original if it only differs from the earlier design
by an immaterial detail, which means that any variation must not be trivial or
infinitesimal which a skilled person might make between the articles for commercial

Fans Lt vs Haji Md Firoz and another 47 DLR 285.


Patents And Designs Act, 1911


Patents And
Designs Act, 1911



of registered design and copyright

51A of the Patents and Designs Act provides that any person interested in the matter
may apply to the High Court Division for cancellation of the registration of a
design on the ground that the design is not a new or an original one. In the
instant case, the questioned design not being a new and original one, the
Controller of Patents and Designs committed illegality in registering the
design and as such it is liable to be cancelled.

Abdul Karim
and another Vs. Messrs Khan Electronics Ltd., Dhaka and others, 15 BLD(HCD)50

Ram Sahai Vs. Angroo, A.I.R. 1992 All) 496; Karachi Textile Works Vs. Multan Handloom
Factory, PLD 1955 (Karachi) 351; The Elgin Mills Company Vs. The Muir Mills Company,
I.L.R. 1895 (All) 490—Cited.






Sections — 43, 47, 51A and 53


Copy right — Piracy of designs and
their protection — A copy right in a design registered under the Act can be
protected by an order of injunction against any other person who is found to
infringe upon such copy right

— As long
as the register of designs is not rectified or registration is not cancelled by
following the procedure in the Act an ordinary Court has no other alternative
than enforcing. the copy right.

Md. Abdul Latif Vs. Md. Harunur Rashid,
6BLD (AD) 66

decision reported in 4BLD (HCD) 179 is affirmed by the Appellate Division by
this judgment.]


Sections — 47 and 53


Copy right in design — Right of such
registered proprietor of a design — A registered proprietor of a design shall
have the right in the design during five years from the date of registration
and it is unlawful for any person during the existence of copy right in any
design to make any obvious imitation thereof — As long as registration is not
cancelled he is entitled to safeguard his copy right by injunction against one
who initiates his registered design.

Md. Abdul Latif Vs. Md. Harunur Rashid,
4BLD (HCD) 179.