Intellectual Property Rights Of Industrial Designs

Intellectual Property Rights are the legal rights which results from the intellectual activity in the field of industrial, scientific, literary or artistic fields. These rights give the creator exclusive ownership of the product or article for a certain period of time. It ensures the availability of genuine and original products as well as provides recognition to the creators and inventors.

What is Industrial Design?

When an article or product is created with a particular shape, pattern, color, or is ornamented in such a way that it is aimed on improving its overall functionality, usability or just the aesthetic value then it is known as industrial design.

Why Industrial Design Act?

A copyright is legal protection for an artistic endeavor automatically whereas the industrial design act protects the design for the artist. It has to be registered so that it gives the owner a monopoly and no other can copy or sell similar design and one has to register the design against all the limitations and un-authorized copying.

In India, designs of any product are protected by 2 legal rights:

Registered designs and

Artistic copyright

Advantages of Industrial Design Rights

Industrial designs increase the beauty and appeal of any product. They increase commercial value of the product and raise its potential in the market.

The registration of design helps in safeguarding the aesthetic value of the article. Whenever an industrial design is being registered, exclusive rights are granted to the owner against illegal use like imitation by third party without his/her consent.

An effective system also helps the lay-man by encouraging fair competition and legal trading practices which most importantly boost creativity, finally resulting into beautiful products in terms of variety and originality.

Protection of industrial designs helps in total economic development which in turn develops creativity in the industrial zone.

Industrial Design Rights in India

Currently India’s designs are governed by two documents: The Designs Act, 2000 and the Designs Rules, 2001.

Our country has implemented the 'First to File' system, which implies that the right holder should file the application the earliest to disband any other person from claiming those designs as their own.

All such persons can apply for the rights if they claim to be the ‘proprietor’ of the design and if the design is not previously published in any nation; can be easily produced through manufacturing; not barred by general consensus; totally different from the known designs; and finally not consisting of any obscene material.

According to Indian design laws, the owner can file for the application only if their business is centered in India. If not, they are supposed to file the application through a lawyer or agent who will prepare a document of the case and also conduct the entire prosecution of the application.

Implications of Infringement of the Act

If any individual/company infringes the provisions of the Act, for every count of infringement they could be asked to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (maximum) to the person who owns the design.

They could also be asked to pay an extra Rs. 50,000/- as ‘contract debt’ for any single design.

The total sum that is recovered from the payer should not exceed Rs. 50,000/-.


Faber-Castell Aktiengesellschaf (Sic), A Company Organised Under The Laws Of Germany And A.W. Faber - Castell (India) Pvt. Ltd. A Company Incorporated Under Companies Act, 1956 vs. Pikpen Private Limited on 30/4/2003. as on 30/04/2003.

Back ground of case:

Faber Castell India began its operations in 1998 and was already touching the 1 crore annual sales mark by 2003 [1] . One of the most popular products being sold worldwide by Faber-Castell was the highlighter pen “TEXTLINER". Faber-Castell got the design for the pen registered in India under the Designs Act, 1911 as on 01.08.1997 for a term of 10 years. The unique features registered by Faber–Castell were as under-

A dark green body

A unique cap of the same colour as the colour of the ink in the pen

Gold lettering on the body

"TEXTLINER" which was the Trade mark written on the body of the pen.

Moreover, additional design specifications were also clearly mentioned, “The uniqueness resides in the shape and configuration of the line marker; especially in the cap portion and the ornamental surface on the plug at the bottom of the highlighter. The plug is that part of the highlighter used for filing the fluorescent ink".

Since launching the highlighter in 1998, Faber-Castell claimed to have sold more than 35 million pieces and spent around Rs. 6 lakhs on advertising, printing brochures and other marketing activities. However, in October 2002, Faber-Castell discovered that it was sharing shelf-space with another highlighter which had a striking resemblance with their brand. This highlighter pen also went by the name, “TEXTLINER" and bore an uncanny similarity to the appearance of their original product. It was being produced by a company called “Pikpen Pvt. Ltd." And Faber-Castell found it as an invasion of their design.

Thus, Faber-Castell filed for-

An injunction restraining Pikpen from infringing their registered design for the highlighter sold by them under the trademark “TEXTLINER".

An injunction restraining the defendants from passing-off their highlighter by use of the impugned trade mark "TEXTLINER" and by adopting the almost identical configuration, shape, design, colour scheme and get-up for their product.

Course of action:

2.1. Injunction against infringement of design:

Pikpen’s first course of defense was that they challenged the ownership of the design. According to them, A.W. Faber-Castell Gmbh & Co. held the ownership and not their subsidiaries in India who filed the case.

Also, as the documents related to the design registration submitted by Faber-Castell was translated from German, it didn’t mention the word “design" but “the appearance of goods" which does not qualify for the definition of design.

Under the Design Act, 1911, (under which the pen’s design was registered) a design previously not registered in India can be registered. However, under the Designs Act 2000, they are not entitled to an injunction based on such a design which has been published in a country outside India i.e. the U.S.A. as well as in India.

This was considered as a valid ground by the judge as when the Designs Act, 2000 was enacted, it was done with a clause stating that the earlier act was repealed. Faber-Castell’s design was liable for cancellation on account of the fact that it was published in India and also in the United States prior to the date of its registration. They were therefore, not entitled to an injunction on the ground of infringement of the design in view of the provisions of the Designs Act, 2000.

2.2 Injunction against passing-off:

According to Faber-Castell, they were a company of international repute and enjoyed great goodwill since 1796 as a manufacturer of writing instrument. Because Pikpen was passing off their products as similar to Faber-Castell’s, there was likelihood of damage of reputation and goodwill.

In order to arrive at the right verdict, it was important to understand whether Pikpen was deliberately making a misrepresentation leading to deception and confusion thereby trying to leverage the reputation of Faber-Castell and pass-off their products.

Faber-Castell not only sought an injunction on the infringement of copyright, but also on the duplication of the uniqueness of the configuration/design of the highlighter.

Pikpen presented a front saying that the word “TEXTLINER" signifies the basic functionality of the product and cannot be considered as an exclusive trademark as registered by Faber-Castell. These two words taken separately are clearly descriptive. At the same time, prima facie, the result of the combination is also descriptive. It is descriptive of the function which the said product is intended to perform. For example, if the mark "running shoe" was used for any shoes, it would signify the description of the goods even if the words "running shoes" were joined together. Therefore, this contention was found to have validity.

However, with respect to the infringement of the design, and the claim of “passing-off", the following factors were taken into consideration-









The above words were written on the Pikpen product identically in the same golden colour and font as Faber-Castell’s. Even the word “KOLORPIK" which appears drastically different, was written in such a way that the arrangement of the letters was the same and it could confuse anyone who looked at it comparatively.

Apart from the lettering, the cap looked almost similar. There was a minor difference i.e., a slight curve at the end of the cap, but it is something which would hardly be distinguishable at the time of purchase. Similarly, the size and colour of the plug at the bottom was the same. The only difference was the absence of serrations on the Pikpen’s highlighter which is hardly noticeable, especially when each individual item is put in a polythene bag. Further, the colour of the pens was the same i.e. deep green. But this is a very minute difference. Since the product is not a high involvement one, the chances of one identifying these small details is negligible.


As mentioned above, the plea for injunction restraining Pikpen from using the trademark “TEXTLINER" was not accepted.

However, under the Designs Act, 2000, “In the case of passing off, the defendant can escape liability only if he can show that the added matter is sufficient to distinguish his goods from those of the plaintiff."

Therefore, it was found that the case under consideration was adjudged as a case of deceptive similarity and definite misrepresentation. The consequent damages by way of loss of sale, goodwill, reputation, were bound to follow. Faber-Castell, therefore, had a case for the grant of an injunction.


Bare Act- Designs Act, 1911; Designs Act, 2000. (


Marico Limited A Company Registered Under The Companies Act, 1956 vs Raj Oil Mills Limited ACompany Registered Under The Companies Act, 1956 on 20/2/2008

Back ground of case:

On September, 2006, the problem arose, when the Plaintiffs (Marico) learnt about the use of their “caps" by the Respondents (Raj Oil Mills). Marico had registered and acquired copyright of the design under the Designs Act,1911. They sent an official letter asking Raj Oil mills to change their caps but Raj Oil did not pay heed to this. They denied the allegation of the Plaintiffs and claimed to be using the caps in question since 2002. On 3rd October, 2006, the Plaintiffs with the help of their Advocates letter, once again called upon the Defendants to stop using the impugned caps for which they are the proprietor of registered design. On 4th October, 2006, the Plaintiffs filed the suit in the Court in order to restrain the Defendants from further infringing their registered cap design.

Some Facts of the Case:

Marico’s bottles shape and configuration was registered, whereas, the Respondents registration of separate cap was rejected.

There was no dispute about the front side and isometric bottom view of the CocoRaj bottle, which they got registered sometime in the year 2004.

There was a certificate dated 29th June, 2000 in favour of the Appellants with regard to the registered design number on 181063 dated 10th December, 1999 in Clause 3 in the name of Marico Industries Limited, Mumbai, w.r.t of the shape, configuration and surface pattern of bottle cap of the Appellants.

There is no dispute that both the parties got the cap made separately. The concept of getting such cap registered separately is known to the commercial world and especially business and the market of the products in question. The Respondents cap registration was rejected. The Appellants/ Plaintiffs got the registration under the Act. Therefore, such proprietor of design article is definitely entitled to have exclusive rights to claim the protection. Therefore, unless the said registration is set aside on application either by the Defendants or such person, it was final and binding to all.

Thus, on 4th October, 2006, the Plaintiffs thereafter filed the suit in this Court in order to stop the Defendants from further infringing their registered cap design.

Course of action:

By virtue of registration of cap design of Parachute bottle, the Appellants had acquired the copyright of the said design under the Act. The Appellants had the exclusive rights to manufacture and market such bottle cap and to apply for such a product. The Appellants had been, therefore, using the said registered design since July, 2000.

With respect to the infringement of the design, the following factors were similar-



Shape same

Shape same

Color : Shade of Blue

Color : Shade of Blue

One side of the cap has ribbon shaped hinge

One side of the cap has ribbon shaped hinge

There was no claim in respect of any mechanical or construction or color combination of the article, including use of the letters or numerals.

Basic differences found in Industrial Design:

There was a clear different mark with Parachute and Cocoraj, with a tick mark symbol on Parachute bottle and a single drop shape mark on Cocoraj bottle.

The word "Parachute" and "Cocoraj" were written with different letters, shape, size and design. The marks of both the bottles were different.

The Parachute cap consisted of a circular/ cylindrical elevation with cut outs at two ends. There was no such shape of Respondents cap. The pattern of the Respondents cap was a combination of a concave and a convex surface with the intermediate part being raised.

There was a mark of "Parachute" on the top of the cap. The shape and design of cap of Parachute from the top, rear, left side, right side and views was different than "Cocoraj".

Even from the point of view of the shape and configuration and surface pattern of the bottle cap, looking from the top and surface pattern of the bottle cap, both the bottles were not similar. The colour of cap of "Cocoraj" was translucent blue.

The edges of the caps of "Cocoraj" were rounded. The top of the "Cocoraj" cap had embossed name "Cocoraj" with an embossed tick mark symbol. On "Cocoraj" cap from front, the plastic seal touched the top level of the cap or placed on the equal level. Whereas the plastic seal on the "Parachute" cap or parallel level of the cap. As some part of the cap about the seal was visible on "Parachute" cap. The "Parachute" cap had a sharper edge from all sides.


After deep examination of the registered design cap of the Appellants and the cap of the Respondents, it was declared that both the caps were dissimilar in shape. No case of piracy or any infringement was made out. Both the caps in question were not similar as contemplated under the Act.

Any design article which is capable of being made and sold separately, is a prerogative and or a right of the registered owner of the design to sell it separately or not. . Even if such proprietor decides not to make and or sell it separately and or allow and or permit to any other person to use the said cap of the bottle of their products and or other products still in view of the definition, as the only requirement is that such article and or part of the article should have capacity and or capability being made and sold separately and no other.

Both the bottles caps are separately designed and identifiable by any consumer. It is difficult to accept that there is any similarity in the caps of "Parachute" and "Cocoraj".

Ultimately, because of the above reasons, the Appeal was disposed off.


Bare Act- Copyright Act, 1957; Designs Act, 1911; Designs Act, 2000. (

Law of Copyright and Industrial Designs - P. Narayanan (Fourth Edition)


Delaware & Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd. Registered under Companies Act, 1956 vs. 9 Defendents under Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000.


The plaintiff No.1 is a company incorporated under the name, Delaware, USA. It claimed ownership and possession to the know-how, innovative technology, intellectual property rights and trade secrets in creating the designs used for the manufacture of its products commonly known as the Tupperware products.

The Plaintiff No.2 namely M/s. Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd. is an Indian company. The plaintiff No. 1 had contractually granted them the right to use its moulds to manufacture Tupperware products and also granted the right to use and apply the registered designs for manufacture and sale in India.

The plaintiffs had obtained registrations from the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks under the Designs Act.

This case involves 9 defendants who had allegedly infringed the designs for the Tupperware products i.e. food grade plastic storage containers.

The plaintiffs had then filed an application for an injunction order.

An independent expert body namely the examiner of Patents and Designs at the office of Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata had, with respect to the infringed products' issued a 'search request'. It was observed that there were striking similarities between their designs, colours, materials used etc.

'Signora' is the family trade mark of the business of the defendants under which they were selling the products. One of the major differences was that they were marketed in a cardboard packing material whereas the plaintiff No. 2 was selling its products in loose form.

Another contention of the defendants was that there is a lot of difference between the two trademarks namely 'Tupperware' of the plaintiff and 'Signoraware' of the defendants and, therefore, the question of confusion and deception does not arise. Defendant Nos. 1 and 4 were manufacturing the products in colours which had never been used by the plaintiff No. 2 in India.

The designs in question were claimed to be in “public domain" [2] and the defendant Nos. 1 and 4 had thus manufactured the products from their own skill and labour and were entitled to do so. They had tried to give their explanation with respect to each design.

Out of 9 defendants, 7 were excused from the whole trial as they denied being the stockists of the goods at all; hence the pleadings of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 and 4 were primarily taken into consideration in this case.



According to the plaintiffs, this act on the part of the defendants was illegal and the defendants were to be restrained from manufacturing and marketing their products as it amounted to :

Design infringement under Section 20 of the Designs Act;

Copyright infringement under Section 55 of the Copyright Act;

Defendants were passing-off their goods as that of the plaintiffs by copying trade address and trade name etc. which was confusing and similar to that of the plaintiff’s goods.

The defendants had also copied the designs.

These acts also lead to unfair competition and unfair trade practices which also entitled the plaintiffs to claim injunction against the defendants.

The plaintiff No. 1 had consented to plaintiff No. 2 for using the said registered designs on the Tupperware Products as part of a world wide arrangement as well as for the Tupperware Products to be offered for sale in India by plaintiff No. 2. The application by a third party of any such registered design to any article for the purpose of sale, constituted a piracy of the registered design under the Designs Act, 2000.

The product drawings and moulds would qualify as 'artistic works' of the plaintiff No. 1 under the Copyright Act, 1957 and as the employees of the plaintiff No. 1 had created these works during the course of their employment, under Section 17 of the said Act, plaintiff No. 1 became the owner of the copyright in the said artistic work.

Comparison between the two products through experts had revealed that the goods of the defendants were not as good in quality as that of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the defendants were misrepresenting the product by alleging that they were of the same quality as Tupperware Products and selling at half the rates.


The objections that the defendant had were as follows:

The suit filed by the plaintiff under Section 22 of the Design Act was not valid and the 12 designs in question were published previously and not new and original and, therefore, were unquestionable under the Design Act.

They also tried to nullify few charges on various defendants on the grounds of different profession and the core business not being manufacturing.

Also suit filed by plaintiff No. 2 was challenged because of the argument that registration of the designs were in favor of only plaintiff No. 1 and plaintiff No. 2 had not been made a licensee to use the designs in India.

The suit filed by plaintiff no. 1 u/s 55 of the Copyright Act was also challenged on the grounds stating that the plaintiff had made the disclaimer about the copyright while obtaining the design registrations.


The observations of the learned Single Judge out the concept behind excluding certain designs from protection under the Copyright Act. The contention of the plaintiff to seek protection under the Copyright Act was not valid as their designs were industrial designs and did not qualify as “artistic works". Therefore, prima Facie the Act applicable was the Designs Act and since the designs were not registered under it, their plea for infringement of design was denied.

For a design registered under the Design Act, the protection given is not copyright protection but a true monopoly in manufacturing and selling those products.

The plea of the plaintiffs for trademark infringement was also rejected as the name “Signoraware" was completely different from “Tupperware".

The design of the defendants’ products was too similar to the plaintiff’s products but the quality was considerably reduced. This was quite apparent and hence the latin maxim "Caveat Emptor" meaning let the buyer beware would, therefore apply.

The Signoraware Products were being sold at half the price of Tupperware Products though they were identical in looks. Thus, as per this statement of the plaintiff, the defendants were not passing-off their goods as that of Tupperware Products. The representation was that though they were of the same type as Tupperware but sold cheaper. The very fact that they were selling them at half the price of the Tupperware Products meant that the defendants were making it clear that they were not the same as the Tupperware Products. If they were being sold at the same price, the question of passing-off would have come into picture. Thus, the plea against passing-off was also rejected.


Law of Copyright and Industrial Designs - P. Narayanan (Fourth Edition)


Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. v/s Gopal Glass Works Ltd.

(For cancellation of registration of original design on Glass sheets under Designs Act, 2000)

Case Background:

The case is an ‘Intellectual Property Rights’ Dispute between Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. (who filed the appeal) and Gopal Glass Works Ltd. (who had to defend the allegations).

The original case dates back to 20/09/2004 when the Assistant Controller of Patents and Design, Kolkata had cancelled the registration of Gopal Glass Works Ltd. stating that the designs on glass sheets that it had registered, were already published abroad and also that the designs were neither new nor original and could therefore be applied by any company that wished to do so.

Gopal Glass Works Ltd. filed an appeal against it in the Calcutta High Court and on 17/08/2005, the then Hon. Judge dismissed the cancellation order passed by the Assistant Controller due to the following reasons:

The evidence, especially computer printouts clearly showed that Gopal Glass Works Ltd. had compared the pattern/configuration of the article and not the finished article itself. This fact was not taken into account by the Assistant Controller.

Also, embossing rollers were used to create the pattern onto the glass sheets which could make the designs look very different from when the process is done manually.

Gopal Glass Works Ltd. therefore filed an appeal against the ruling of the Hon. Judge of the Calcutta High Court and the judgment date was stated as 01/05/2008.

Some more facts about the case:

Gopal Glass Works Ltd. claimed to be a manufacturer that also conducted marketing of various types of glass sheets since 1981. They also claimed to be the creators of new and original designs on glass sheets through different processes.

The designs were manufactured with the help of rollers which were supplied to them by a German company, M/s. Dorn Bausch Gravuren GMBH, and were used for a variety of purposes like manufacture of plastics, resins, etc.

On 29/10/2002, Gopal Glass Works Ltd. duly applied for registration under Designs Act, 2000 and was given registration as Design No. 190336 on 05/11/2002. The registration would be valid for 10 years from date of registration.

Gopal Glass Works Ltd. marketed their product under the name ‘Diamond Square’ and issued a notice on 21/05/2003 warning competitors of breaching copyright laws of the registered design to protect their product.

Almost simultaneously, Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. and its’ associate IAG Co. Ltd. started imitating the design. To safeguard its’ property, Gopal Glass Works Ltd. obtained a restraint order against IAG Co. Ltd. by making a case in the District Court of Mehsana.

As a form of retaliation to this move, Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. filed an application under Designs Act, 2000 for cancellation of the registered design no. 190336 on the basis that the design has already been published abroad and that the designs are not new and original.

The major evidence supporting Bharat Glass Tube Ltd.’s claim were:

A letter dated 10/09/2003 from M/s. Dorn Bausch Gravuren GMBH to IAG Co. Ltd. stating that their design was already published as Design no. 2960-9010 in the brochure of the German company in the year 1992.

A document obtained from the official website of the Patent Office of United Kingdom on 22/09/2004 which clearly showed the original design being registered as Design no. 2022468 in the name of M/s. Verla Vereinigte Glaswerke GMBH, sometime in 1992.

Against these claims, Gopal Glass Works Ltd. filed an affidavit claiming that M/s. Dorn Bausch Gravuren GMBH was only into manufacturing the rollers and not using them to produce glass sheets. Gopal Glass Works Ltd. also produced a letter dated 04/03/2004 from the German company which proved that the design no. 2960-9010 was sold to Gopal Glass Works Ltd. giving it exclusive rights to market and to sell the designs in India for the next 5 years.

An affidavit was also filed by the Liaison Executive of Gopal Glass Works Ltd. claiming that he went to Germany and found that M/s. Verla Vereinigte Glaswerke GMBH never produced a single glass sheet of the design no. 2022468 in the United Kingdom.

Course of Action:

The Assistant Controller importantly took two main points into consideration for the case,

The design was registered by M/s. Dorn Bausch Gravuren GMBH in 1992 on the roller to be used to produce either on glass, resin or leather; therefore it cannot be new or original.

The same design was also obtained from United Kingdom as is evident from the downloaded information from the Patent website of United Kingdom.

After the appeal was made against the ruling of the High Court, the Court had to make a decision whether the view taken by the Assistant Controller was right or the ruling made by the Hon. Judge of Calcutta High Court would be appropriate.

It was the responsibility of Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. to prove to the court that the design was not original. Here it only tried to prove with the help of a letter from M/s. Dorn Bausch Gravuren GMBH that they produced the rollers. It was not mentioned anywhere that the rollers have been reproduced on the glass sheets by the company or by anyone else. The expression “new and original" means that the design is registered and has not been published anywhere or it has been invented for the first time or it has not been reproduced by anyone. [3] 

Designs Act, 2000 gives us a clear idea that any particular shape is to be registered which is to be sought to be produced on any article that will have visual appeal to the public; and such a design, once registered, cannot be pirated by anyone. In this case, there is absolutely no evidence displayed before any Court to prove that this design which has been reproduced on the glass sheet was manufactured anywhere in India or abroad. There is also no evidence to support that these rollers were used to design them on glass sheets in the three concerned countries, India, United Kingdom or Germany.

Hence the Court concluded that the design which is to be reproduced on the article i.e. glass has been registered for the first time in India and exclusive rights were acquired from M/s. Dorn Bausch Gravuren GMBH for the same (evidence being the letter dated 04/03/2004 from M/s. Dorn Bausch Gravuren GMBH).

The Courts’ attention was sought by Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. to the following:

“Design means a conception or suggestion or idea of a shape or of a picture or of a device or of some arrangement which can be applied to an article by some manual, mechanical or chemical means mentioned in the definition clause. It is a suggestion of form or ornament to be applied to a physical body." [4] 

This proves that the design and the design to be applied to an article are required to go hand-in-hand. In our case, the design was reproduced on glass which is registered. It could have alternately been registered with rexin or leather as well.

At this point in time, the Courts’ attention was invited by Gopal Glass Works Ltd. to the similar cases of the Delhi High Court ‘M/s Domestic Appliances and Others v/s M/s. Globe Super Parts’ and ‘The Wimco Ltd. Bombay v/s M/s. Meena Match industries, Sivakasi & Others.’

In both these cases, the ruling was found to be in favour of non-cancellation of registration as both the respondents proved significantly that the designs were sought to be registered for the first time in India and it had never been reproduced anywhere in the world before.

The next piece of evidence which was brought forward by Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. which was a website from the United Kingdom Patent office which showed that the patent might have been applied to glass sheets. But the Court disregarded this piece of evidence as it was not enough to show that M/s. Verla Vereinigte Glaswerke GMBH had manufactured it themselves on a glass sheet. A comparison could be made visually, but it was not conclusive that the designs were the same.

Judgment or Verdict:

The Judgment passed by the Court was as follows:

The glass-sheets were shown in Court with all the dimensions with a copy of the printout of the United Kingdom design and it was of the opinion that there is no comparison between the two designs.

Hence based on the above observation and the remaining evidence, the Court said that the Assistant Controller did not seem to have the correct view about the case and the decision taken by the Hon. Judge of the Calcutta High Court was correct and binding.

The final decision taken was that the appeal by Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. was turned down and they were ordered to pay Gopal Glass Works Ltd. a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for damages.