The appellants, as the proprietor of a registered design and the local exclusive licensee, sought relief against the respondents on the ground that they were infringing their design registration. The court a quo dismissed the application with costs on the ground that the design had not been validly registered because it was not new or original. It also held that the design, in any event, had not been infringed. The present appeal was noted. Held ­ The design was registered under the Designs Act 195 of 1993 as an aesthetic design in class 13, which covers equipment for the production, distribution or transformation of electricity. The Act draws a distinction between aesthetic and functional designs. Examining the evidence regarding the nature of the design, the Court found that the court a quo had erred in finding that the design lacked novelty. The next question was that of infringement. That involved a determination of whether the respondents' products embodied the registered design or a design not substantially different from the registered design. The test is not a trademark infringement test and the issue was not whether or not there was confusion or deception. It would, therefore, be wrong to introduce concepts developed in a trademark context such as imperfect recollection into this part of the law. The design test is closer to the patent infringement test. The differences between the parties' designs were insubstantial, and the appeal was accordingly upheld.