Case Name: Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. v. Gopal Glass Works Ltd. 

Citation: (2008) 10 SCC 657 

Court: Supreme Court of India 

Coram: A K Mathur & Altamas Kabir, JJ 

Abstract 

Day by day, new inventions, designs, ideas are being created. Behind every successful story, there is a hardworking mind, with hard dedications and a lot renounces. When someone tries to take profit out of this, or when someone says it’s fake, but actually it’s not, can the inventor tolerate this? The blog dives deep into the questions through the case of Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. v. Gopal Glass Works Ltd. Moreover, the case put forward the need and importance of proper registration and evidences. 

Introduction

“Ei incumbit propation qui dicit, no qui negat”

Today, in this fast growing world, everyone is busy in their own world, simply saying, ‘everyone is in their own cocoons!’, but do people care about others? Yes, they do. But do you know ‘when’? When someone around them gets rich. They will consider them and try to make more money than them, right? But not everyone chooses the same path, some try to get it through ‘stealing’. Yes, not only stealing things which are physical, but also the things, the ideas, through which they can gain something. The above maxim says that, the burden of proof lies upon whom who asserts, or the person who has problem with a matter. In the case of Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. v. Gopal Glass Works Ltd., the appellant went against the registration regarding the design of the respondent company. In this case, it shows the importance of evidence, how actually ‘registration’ works, why should one do it, and how it affects. 

Facts of the case

What happened is that, the respondent and the appellant were having similar kind of industrial designs for their glass sheets. The respondent first applied for the registration of the design under the Designs Act, 2000 and it was registered with the design number 190336. The appellant, then approached the court under section 19 of the Designs Act, 2000 stating that the design was not new and it had already been published in India and abroad. In response, the respondent filed an appeal under section 36 of the same act. 

Issues involved 

Whether a design is prohibited from registration under section 4 of the Designs Act, 2000? Whether the section 19 of the Designs Act, 2000 is applicable in this case? 

Reasoning

In the above case, Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. v. Gopal Glass Works Ltd. the respondent used a design which was similar to the design made by the appellant. Under section 4 of the Designs Act, 2000, any design which is already existing, that means, a design which is not new, a design, which is not easily distinguishable from the already existing ones or contains obscene matters are prohibited from being registered under the act. If any design has been registered, but not is appropriate can be cancelled at any time, if any person files a petition under section 19 of the Designs Act, 2000. Here, in this case, the respondent filed an appeal under section 36 of the Act. The appellant’s design was not registered and there were no evidence of the design being published or registered under any act, so section 36 of the act evoked. The design can only be removed when there is valid evidence of the design being published or registered earlier. 

Critique

In this case, the Supreme Court’s decision came in favour of the respondent, since there were no evidence showing that the design was published earlier or registered under any act. In my opinion, since there were no evidence or facts, which states whether there was a particular design that resembles the appellant’s design with the respondent’s, hence the respondent cannot be made liable and his design protection cannot be revoked, under section 2(g) of the Designs Act, 2000 which talks about orginality. As per The Evidence Act, 1872 (The Bharathiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) the onus or the burden of proof lies in the hand of the challenger, who challenged against the laws to prove that the wrong is done. If the appellant could produce some evidences supporting his arguments, the registered design of the respondent could be cancelled by the authorities. Just, have a thought, if the design was originally occupied or carried on by the appellant, why he did not register it earlier? If, the appellant was having a genuine reason, why did not he published under any statute?

Conclusion 

The case of Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. v. Gopal Glass Works Ltd., says the importance of need for a proper registration and publication of a design, and shows the importance of evidence, when it comes to claims. A properly registered design need not need to fear, if it is done genuinely and without any fraud. Through this case, we know the importance and need of registration of designs and how it makes a difference.  

References

Drishti Judiciary, ‘Bharat Glass Tube Limited V. Gopal Glass Works Limited, 2008’, (10 May 2024), Bharat Glass Tube Limited v. Gopal Glass Works Limited, 2008 

LawWeb, ‘Understanding “Ei Incumbit Probatio Qui Dicit, Non Qui Negat” in Indian Law’, (3 December 2024), Law Web: Understanding “Ei Incumbit Probatio Qui Dicit, Non Qui Negat” in Indian Law 

The Designs Act, 2000 

The Bharathiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 

LawBhoomi, ‘Intellectual Property Rights Notes’, (11 April 2026), [Intellectual Property Rights Notes]