Facts of the Case
A footwear manufacturing company designed a new collection of shoes featuring a prominent religious symbol embossed on the outer side of each shoe. The company believed this unique design element could distinguish its product in the marketplace. They applied to register this shoe design under the Designs Act, 2000, seeking industrial design protection to prevent competitors from replicating the style.
Soon after the application, objections arose from various religious communities and social groups. They considered the use of a sacred symbol on footwear offensive, disrespectful, and culturally insensitive. The matter reached the Design Office and eventually the courts, raising questions about whether such a design could be legally protected under India’s industrial design laws.
Issues of the Case
- Can a religious symbol used as a decorative element on shoes be protected as an industrial design?
- Does such a registration violate public order or morality under the Designs Act, 2000?
- Should religious sentiments influence design registration decisions under intellectual property law?
Principles and Related Case Law
Under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000, an industrial design refers to the features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or composition of lines or colors applied to any article. These features must be judged solely by the eye in a finished article and must be original, novel, and not contrary to public order or morality.
Key Legal Principles:
- Morality and Public Order:
Section 5 and Section 35 of the Designs Act empower the Controller to refuse registration if a design goes against public morality or decency. - No Protection for Religious Offense:
The legal system does not support any form of intellectual property that offends the religious beliefs or cultural sentiments of the public. - Precedent Case:
In the Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. v. Gopal Glass Works Ltd. (2008), the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of maintaining originality in design registration, but also emphasized that the design must not be scandalous or obscene. In another case, though not directly linked to design law, Narendra Mohanty v. Union of India (2004) emphasized that the use of religious emblems or sacred symbols in commercial products must be balanced carefully against constitutional values and public sensitivity.
These cases and principles form the basis of evaluating whether using a religious symbol on shoes can be approved for registration.
Judgment
The Design Office, after reviewing the application and considering objections, rejected the registration. The examiner concluded that embossing a religious symbol on footwear, an item often in contact with the ground and dirt, amounts to a violation of public order and morality. The Controller further held that the design was capable of offending religious sentiments, which violates the spirit of Section 5 of the Designs Act, 2000.
The applicant company filed a writ petition challenging this decision. However, the High Court upheld the Design Office’s refusal. The court stated:
“Though artistic freedom and innovation are encouraged under industrial design law, they must not infringe upon cultural and religious sensitivities. When a sacred symbol is used in a manner that amounts to disrespect or commodification, the design loses its moral acceptability and cannot be granted legal protection.”
The judgment reinforced the principle that no design that disrespects the religious beliefs of a community shall qualify for registration under Indian design law.
