1. Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with an interim injunction granted by a commercial court restraining a footwear manufacturer from producing and selling shoes that were alleged to infringe the registered design of another footwear company. The Court held that the commercial court had correctly applied the prima facie test, relied on visual comparison, and recognised that a footwear design need not be drastically innovative to gain statutory protection.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court concluded that the rival product was substantially similar in its look, feel, and overall visual identity, and that minor differences raised by the appellant were immaterial at the interim stage. The injunction therefore stands.
2. Facts
The respondent is the proprietor of a registered design for a casual, lightweight shoe that features a distinctive arrangement of perforations, a particular pattern of grooves, and a specific sole configuration. The respondent alleged that the appellant began selling shoes that were a near-identical copy, differing only in negligible cosmetic aspects such as minor variations in hole shape and placement.
The commercial court evaluated the rival shoes, conducted a side-by-side visual inspection, and granted an injunction restraining the appellant from continuing manufacture or sale. The appellant approached the High Court, arguing that the commercial court erred by:
• overlooking “clear and obvious” dissimilarities,
• ignoring that the design was neither novel nor unique,
• failing to consider functional elements, and
• applying an overly broad test of similarity.
The respondent defended the injunction, contending that the rival design was an unmistakable reproduction, and that registration gave it statutory exclusivity irrespective of the appellant’s assertions regarding common industry patterns.
3. Issues
The High Court considered the following key issues:
- Whether the commercial court correctly evaluated overall visual similarity, as required under design law.
- Whether the registered footwear design demonstrated novelty and originality sufficient to enjoy statutory protection.
- Whether the appellant’s differences were material, or merely insignificant variations intended to evade liability.
- Whether the injunction required interference at the appellate stage under the standards governing appeals against interlocutory orders.
4. Appellant’s arguments
The appellant argued that the registered design lacked novelty because other manufacturers produce similar casual footwear with perforated uppers and molded soles. According to the appellant, the respondent’s design was merely a “trade variant” of commonplace footwear structures and therefore should not enjoy protection.
The appellant further argued that its own footwear had distinctive features, including differing shapes and alignments of perforations, a different contour in the upper body, distinctive curvature in the midsole, and a modified sole texture. It claimed the commercial court failed to appreciate these differences.
The appellant also contended that the commercial court relied too heavily on visual similarity and did not give adequate weight to functional constraints in footwear design, which, according to the appellant, often compel manufacturers to adopt similar patterns.
5. Respondent’s arguments
The respondent argued that design registration establishes statutory presumption of validity, and at the interim stage the onus lies heavily on the challenger. The respondent maintained that the appellant’s shoe was an “undisguised imitation,” replicating the key arrangement of holes, the same distribution pattern, and the same sole contours.
It contended that the commercial court conducted the correct test—what the consumer sees at first glance—and found near-identical visual impression. The respondent asserted that the appellant’s so-called differences were merely cosmetic alterations introduced to mask copying.
The respondent submitted that footwear design, even when simple, may qualify for protection so long as it expresses distinct visual features.
6. Analysis of the law
The Court reiterated that design law focuses on visual features, not technical superiority. Novelty in design does not require complex or radical innovation. Even modest, recognizable, stylistic arrangements that give a product a distinctive appearance qualify for protection.
The High Court emphasised that minor changes in perforation shape, spacing, or sole contour generally do not defeat design infringement claims when the overall visual effect remains similar. The correct test is consumer perception—not a microscopic comparison.
The Court also reaffirmed that appellate interference with interim injunctions is limited. Unless an order is perverse, ignores material facts, or misapplies legal standards, appellate courts avoid substitution of discretion.
In the present case, the commercial court conducted a detailed visual evaluation, addressed the arguments of both sides, and applied the governing principles accurately. Nothing indicated an error warranting interference.
The Court stressed that litigation involving footwear design often includes deliberate micro-variations by alleged infringers—variations that do not change the overall look. Courts have consistently rejected such defensive tactics.
7. Precedent analysis
While the judgment avoids specific citations by name, the Court’s reasoning is entirely consistent with settled design-law jurisprudence:
(a) Visual impression test
Courts focus on the “eye appeal” of the impugned product. If the viewer perceives them as substantially similar, minor deviations do not avoid infringement.
(b) Presumption of validity of registered designs
A defendant cannot defeat an injunction by asserting prior art or lack of novelty without producing strong material at the interim stage.
(c) Insignificant variations do not negate copying
Courts have repeatedly held that superficial alterations intended to escape liability—such as changing perforation shape or rearranging minor features—do not defeat a claim when the design’s “identity” is faithfully reproduced.
(d) Appellate restraint in interlocutory matters
Interference is rare unless the discretion of the lower court is palpably unreasonable.
8. Court’s reasoning
The High Court concluded that the appellant’s product generated the same overall visual impact as the registered design. The perforation scheme, the distribution and alignment of openings, the silhouette of the shoe, the heel and toe configuration, and the sole form collectively created a near-identical impression.
The Court rejected the argument that functional constraints compelled this similarity, noting that the appellant offered no evidence that the particular arrangement of features was dictated solely by function.
The Court found that the commercial court properly balanced convenience and irreparable harm:
• The respondent, as the design owner, risked dilution of its exclusive rights if imitation flooded the market.
• The appellant could continue making its other footwear lines without adopting the disputed design.
• The market impact during pendency of the trial could substantially harm the design proprietor.
Thus, the discretion exercised by the commercial court was sound, reasoned, and aligned with the governing law. The appeal was dismissed.
9. Conclusion
The High Court reaffirmed that even simple designs—such as low-cost footwear—can enjoy statutory protection when they possess a distinct visual identity. The appellant’s product was found substantially similar, and therefore the interim injunction was justified.
The appeal was dismissed, leaving the injunction in full effect. All pending applications were disposed of.
10. Implications
This ruling reinforces key design-law principles:
• The overall visual impression remains the paramount test.
• Design simplicity does not erode protection.
• Minor differences cannot camouflage copying.
• Registering a design ensures powerful interim protection in commercial disputes.
• Infringers cannot rely on functional-necessity arguments without robust evidence.
• Appellate courts remain reluctant to disturb interim orders grounded in visual evaluation.
The judgment strengthens enforcement confidence for industries producing simple but visually distinctive consumer goods.
CASE LAW REFERENCES (based on principles applied)
Visual impression test — Courts prioritise total appearance over minor differences.
Presumption of design validity — Registered designs receive protection unless convincingly rebutted.
Inconsequential variations — Small alterations do not avoid infringement where the identity of appearance remains.
Interim injunction jurisprudence — Appellate courts defer to the discretion of commercial courts.
FAQs
1. What is the primary test for design infringement?
The dominant test is the overall visual impression—how the product appears to an ordinary purchaser at first glance.
2. Can simple footwear designs receive legal protection?
Yes. A design need not be complex; even simple visual configurations qualify for protection if they create a distinct appearance.
3. Do minor differences prevent design infringement claims?
No. Small cosmetic changes cannot defeat a claim when the overall look and feel of the product remain substantially similar.
