INTRODUCTION

M/S Kamdhenu Limited v. M/S Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd. is a significant case concerning the steel manufacturing industry’s design rights and industrial standards. The case addresses the complex intersection between industrial standards compliance and design novelty, particularly focusing on whether conformity with published standards automatically negates the novelty of a design. The dispute arose from Kamdhenu’s claim of design infringement regarding their double-ribbed steel bars against Aashiana’s allegedly similar product.

The case represents a crucial development in Indian design law, especially in industries where technical standards play a vital role in product development and safety. It explores the delicate balance between protecting innovative designs and maintaining the accessibility of standardized industrial specifications. The judgment provides important guidance on how courts should approach design protection claims in standardized industries, particularly when examining the relationship between compliance with international technical standards and claims of design novelty. This case becomes particularly relevant in India’s growing manufacturing sector, where companies must adhere to international standards while protecting their intellectual property rights.

FACTS

• Kamdhenu Limited claimed to have created a unique steel bar design with double ribs in 2012-2013.
• The design was registered (No. 250968) with effect from January 14, 2013, with the Controller issuing a certificate on August 29, 2014.
• The novelty claimed was in the “surface pattern particularly in the portions marked A & B of the ‘rod for construction’.”
• Kamdhenu launched steel bars with this design (Kamdhenu SS10000 TMT) on June 18, 2013, achieving significant commercial success (₹60-100 crores in annual sales).
• In June 2017, Kamdhenu discovered Aashiana selling steel bars with allegedly identical designs under “Friends 500 HD TMT Bars.”
• The Delhi High Court Division Bench had earlier set aside an injunction order, and the Supreme Court declined special leave to appeal against this order.

ISSUES

1. Whether the suit should be dismissed summarily under Order XIII-A of CPC.
2. Whether Kamdhenu’s registered design was valid, new and original.
3. Whether the defendant infringed the plaintiff’s registered design.

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES 

Plaintiff’s Arguments:

1. Their design with double ribs was new, novel, and original.
2. The specific angles of the double ribs (48° and 65°) were unique and not evident in prior standards.
3. Conformity with published standards doesn’t negate novelty, as standards allow for a range of possible implementations.
4. The defendant fraudulently imitated their popularized double-ribbed design.

Defendant’s Arguments:

1. The plaintiff’s design wasn’t new or novel but copied from prior published standards, particularly British Standard (BS 44449:2005, category B500C).
2. The double-ribbed pattern was a functional element used to create a mechanical lock between concrete and reinforcement bars.
3. The plaintiff suppressed prior published designs from both the Controller and the Court.
4. The design has been well-known and has been published since 1984 by various international standards.
5. Under Section 4(b) of the Designs Act, the design was incapable of registration and liable to be canceled under Section 19.

DECISION 

The Delhi High Court examined the complex relationship between design protection and industrial standardization in the case of M/S Kamdhenu Limited v. M/S Aashiana Rolling Mills Ltd., which dealt with alleged design infringement in steel manufacturing. Kamdhenu Limited, the plaintiff, claimed both registered design protection and unique implementation of standard specifications in their dispute against the defendants’ alleged copying of their double-ribbed steel bar design.

The defendants contested the plaintiff’s claims, arguing that the design was neither new nor original but rather a direct implementation of previously published international standards. After examining both parties’ evidence and the relevant standards documentation, the Court found compelling evidence that the design had been previously published in various international standards.

The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument regarding the uniqueness of their specific angle measurements, stating that these weren’t part of the original registration and fell within standard specifications. The Court emphasized that compliance with published standards could constitute prior publication, particularly when the standards contained detailed design elements rather than mere generic specifications.

The Court found that the plaintiff had failed to establish a real prospect of success in their claim. This conclusion was reached after careful consideration of the documentary evidence, which showed that the design elements claimed as novel were previously published in various international standards dating back to 1984. The Court determined that this case met the requirements for summary judgment under Order XIII-A, as the material facts were undisputed and could be determined without a full trial.

ANALYSIS

The Kamdhenu decision has made a significant contribution to India’s design law jurisprudence, particularly in the context of standardized industrial products. The Court’s ruling establishes important guidelines for protecting design rights while balancing the necessity of compliance with international technical standards. The judgment recognizes that while industrial standards may allow for various implementations, merely selecting specific measurements within standardized parameters may not constitute a protectable novelty.

A sophisticated understanding of the relationship between standardization and design protection is evident in the Court’s approach. It acknowledges that while industrial products must often conform to technical standards for safety and compatibility, this conformity must be balanced against the protection of genuine innovation in design. This interpretation provides crucial guidance for manufacturers in standardized industries, helping them understand the scope of design protection available within standardized parameters.

Important procedural aspects of design protection are also clarified by the ruling. By granting summary judgment, the Court demonstrates that clear documentary evidence of prior publication through international standards can be sufficient to resolve design disputes without the need for a full trial. This approach promotes judicial efficiency while ensuring that design protection remains focused on genuine innovation rather than minor variations of standardized specifications.

The case sets a noteworthy precedent for protecting industrial designs, especially in an era where global standardization plays an increasingly important role in manufacturing. It highlights the need for manufacturers to demonstrate substantial deviation from published standards when claiming design protection while ensuring that basic technical standards remain accessible to all industry participants. This balanced approach helps maintain the integrity of the design protection system while promoting standardization and safety in industrial manufacturing.

The Court’s decision effectively reinforces the judiciary’s role in maintaining reasonable access to standardized technical specifications while protecting genuine design innovation. The ruling strikes a crucial balance between preserving the public domain of industrial standards and safeguarding manufacturers’ efforts in developing truly novel design elements. This interpretation provides clear guidelines for future cases involving similar issues in industrial design protection and standardization.