This Court observed on the basis of the material on record that the defence in the instant case was based on the material placed before the Court and use of the design of the Plaintiff was prior in point of time and, therefore, the whole judgment proceeds on granting relief on the premise that the Defendant had sufficiently established that the design of the Plaintiff was not original but was infested by existence of the prior art. In any case, the present Appellants have sufficient opportunity to demonstrate during the course of the proceedings in the suit and demolish the case of the Plaintiff by rendering sufficient evidence before the Court .
DESIGNS
  Concept of Newness and originality determine validity of registration to answer the question of Designs & Piracy – So going by Sections 4, 19 and 22 of Designs Act, 2000 it is to be held footwear of Plaintiff is nothing but a sandal. Sandal with open spaces are only trade variations of a sandal. Placing of open spaces or perforation or gaps, and sandals being with or without straps at back, are merely only variations or trade variations of footwear. Trade variations of footwear/sandals cannot be and should not be given exclusive monopoly.
DESIGNS