1) VAN

- No, THERE IS NO INFRINGEMENT.

- As per section 2 'd' and as per sec 4(a) and 4(c) of the design act, a
design has to be original and the significant differences should be
there from known to already registered design. Also, In the case of
Dart Industries Inc. v. Cello Plastotech court held that if the
difference an be seen through the eye alone only then the claim for
infringement can be entertained. Here in the present case, both the
Vans looks different by ocular inspection, the designs are very
mush distinct to each other and there is no chance that that will
create the confusion among customers. The differences are like the
visibilities of the tyres, height of the glasses and the overall van,
the doors differ from one another, entry gate, one van has massive
grill where other hasn’t, headlights are horizontal and vertical
respectively. So, aesthetic appeal of both the vans are different.

2) FACE CLEANING BRUSH

- Yes, THERE IS AN INFRINGEMENT.
- First, we examine both the face cleansing brush, at first look we do
not come to know that both belong to different companies. As we
take a closer look at the design of both the pores or the teeth of the
brush are places in a similar way, the colour combination of both
the brushes is the same, the both of the brush has a battery holder
that is transparent in both brushes and there 2 dark shades in the
battery is also the same. While giving a closer look it will be seen
that the inductor of plus and minus are also at the same place. The
only different in both the design is the curved lines and the
increased potion of the brush. Thus, being a customer, we can
easily be fooled for the two companies or can easily consider the
new product as a another updated version of the old product. As
per sec 4 of the design act, a design which is not significantly
distinguishable from known designs or combination of known
designs, are prohibited to registration. Also, the there is no original
 design. Also, section 22 of the states that the piracy of the
registered design is prohibited, here in the case newer brush is
clearly pirated from the design of the older one. Both the brush has
same aesthetic appeal.

3) BURBERRY SCARF

- Yes, THERE IS AN INFRINGEMENT.

- Both the scarves’ design is similar, Burberry has got his signature
check design in clothes registered. An ocular inspection makes it
clearer that the scarf of Target is exact similar including the check
marks, colour combination, amount of lines being present on the
scarf, way to use it, hanging threads at the end of scarves, etc.
everything is as matched as the other scarf. As per sec 4 of the
design act, a design which is not significantly distinguishable from
known designs or combination of known designs, are prohibited to
registration. Also, the there is no original design. Also, section 22 of
the states that the piracy of the registered design is prohibited.
Here in the case Target scarves clearly pirated the design of the
Burberry. The definition of the design under the section 2(d), which
states that the design means only features, shape, configuration,
pattern, ornaments. And in this case the design that is the pattern
is known to the public. Also, the ‘iconic check pattern’ of Burberry
is an exclusive registered trademark and has been using it since
1920’s for its scarves. Such infringement can create confusion for
the buyers as to the source of the respective products.

4) Decker’s and Arizona Carmen Girls Boot

- Yes, THERE IS AN INFRINGEMENT.
- In this case, the Decker’s Design D599,999 and Arizona Crescent
Casual Suede Boot are almost same to each other. There is no
creativity or novelty in the product of the Accused party. The shape
of both the products is same, the button design on the side, the
 partition in the boot and the curve all are the same. As per sec 4 of
the design act, a design which is not significantly distinguishable
from known designs or combination of known designs, are
prohibited to registration. The minor change which can be seen are
not easily identifiable by the eye. Meaning to which if the aesthetic
appeal of both the product is same then it can be said that new
product lack originality. when judging solely by the eye there is no
distinctiveness in the product of the Accused and a customer
would not be able to differentiate the products. The sole of the shoe
is placed in the same way in both the shoes. Moreover, the shape,
the placing of the button in the second picture, the stitches that
are visible are all same in both the shoes. Hence as per section 4 of
the design act, the newer design is not original, it has been already
introduced and established and also is not significantly
distinguishing from the other, and so, yes there is an infringement
of design in this case. One fact is that also that company Decker’s
Outdoor Corporation in over 130 countries worldwide whereas the
accused started copying the same product with a minor negligible
change.

5) RCD and Kiddie Case

- No, THERE IS NO INFRINGEMENT.
- The two Kiddie Cases are having different aesthetic appeal. the
older case is silvery in colour, while the other one is orange and
designed like a tiger. On the first look, no customer will consider
the silvery one to be in the shape of a tiger. The shape of the
orange one is is like that of a body of a tiger and also the wheels
that are covered with the tiger's legs which makes them invisible in
the first look. While in the other one, the shape isn't like that of a
tiger in fact it is in the shape of a clutch and also the wheels are
visible and not covered with anything. The details in the newer
design are completely dedicated to portraying a baby tiger. also,
Even the shape in of the older design has a curved dent which
appears to have different aesthetics, the newer design has a bubbly
back with a newer type of handle. Hence as per section 2(d) of the
design act, the visual appearance of both the cases is different and
as per section 4(c), the design is new and both are significantly
distinguishable. Meaning to which both the designs are original
and does not violates sec 4(a).
.