JUDGMENT Biswanath Somadder, J. 1. The Court: In terms of the order dated 26th July, 2012, Dr. Sukanya Chattopadhyay, the Assistant Controller of Patents And Designs, Kolkata is personally present. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under section 36 of the Designs Act, 2000 against an order dated 11th January, 2012, passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Kolkata, under section 5(4) of the Designs Act, 2000. By the impugned order, the Assistant Controller refused registration of a design under application No. 233798. 2. After considering the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties and upon perusing the impugned order, it appears that the registering authority was, inter alia, of the view that novelty alone was not sufficient for registration of design and there had to be substantial originality in a design. If that was not established, then the application for registration ought not to be allowed to proceed for registration. 3. During the course of hearing, designs more or less of a similar nature, which were already registered, were produced. This Court, however, did not notice substantial originality in them. Certainly there were variations, but such variations alone could not have allowed registration of those designs, if one takes into account the views expressed by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs in the impugned order. 4. While considering whether a particular design can be registered, the registering authority should, at first, carefully consider the statutory definition of the word, "design", as provided under section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000, and thereafter, consider the prohibitions laid down under section 4 of the Designs Act. 2000, which specifically debars registration of certain designs. If any of the prohibitions laid down under section 4 of the Designs Act, 2000, is attracted in respect of a design placed for registration, the same cannot be registered. However, in the facts of the instant case, in view of what has been observed hereinbefore, it cannot be held with certainty that the design that was placed for registration was not significantly distinguishable from known designs or combination of known designs. The yardstick applied for registering a design under a particular class is required to be maintained and adhered to evenly and consistently by the Controller while deciding on the issue of registration of a design falling under the same class and cannot be varied in any manner. The yardstick applied for registering a design under a particular class is required to be maintained and adhered to evenly and consistently by the Controller while deciding on the issue of registration of a design falling under the same class and cannot be varied in any manner. In other words, the parameters for registering a design under a particular class cannot be altered in any manner while the Controller decides on the issue of registration of a design falling under the same class. Therefore, the issue as to whether the design in question can be registered or not is required to be revisited by the registering authority, namely, the Assistant Controller of Patent & Designs, Kolkata. 5. In such circumstances, the impugned order dated 11th January, 2012 is set aside and the entire matter is directed to be considered de novo by the Assistant Controller of Patent & Designs, Kolkata, based on the observations made hereinbefore. 6. The entire exercise in terms of this order shall be completed by the Assistant Controller of Patent & Designs, Kolkata, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months, but not later than four months from the date of communication of a photostat certified copy of this order. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.