Design Infringement vs. Trade Variants: Why Comparing Market Products Instead of Registered Designs Can Be Fatal to an IP Injunction Claim in the Bombay High Court.

🔒 For Members Only

Case: Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v. Stove Kraft Limited
Court: Bombay High Court
Date: 17-04-2026
Law: Designs Act, Commercial Courts Act, Code of Civil Procedure.

Full Judgment → MCQ Test →

In the competitive world of consumer appliances, a sleek design is often the primary differentiator between a market leader and a runner-up. However, when does a "petal-inspired curve" or a "Z-shaped shank" transition from a functional necessity to a protected intellectual property? A recent judgment by the Bombay High Court in the case of Atomberg Technologies Private Limited vs. Stove Kraft Limited offers a masterclass in the nuances of design infringement and the high evidentiary bar required to secure an interim injunction.

The dispute centered on Atomberg’s popular ceiling fans. The plaintiff alleged that Stove Kraft’s "Pigeon Fan-tastic" was a fraudulent imitation of their registered design. While the court had initially granted an ex-parte order, the final analysis at the interim stage led to a complete reversal, providing several critical takeaways for IP practitioners and businesses alike.

1. The Trap of the "Product-versus-Product" Comparison

Perhaps the most impactful lesson from this judgment is the court’s insistence on comparing the defendant’s product specifically against the plaintiff’s registered design, rather than the plaintiff’s current market models. Atomberg had introduced several subsequent models like the Renesa Prime and Renesa Zen. In their pleadings, they compared the defendant’s fan to these newer models.

The court found this approach misleading. In design law, the protection is tethered strictly to the specific drawings and views filed during registration. If a company evolves its product line, it cannot use the registration of an older "Alpha" model to stop a competitor who allegedly copies a newer "Prime" model. As the court noted, the plaintiff attempted to extend protection to subsequent variants without separate registrations, a move the court firmly rejected.

2. The "Instructed Eye" and the Test of Visual Appeal

Design infringement is not a matter of microscopic measurements or technical specifications; it is judged "solely by the eye". However, this is not the eye of a casual observer with a fading memory, but rather an "instructed eye" capable of identifying the essential features of the design. The court applied this test to find that the differences in the motor housing lid, shank profile, and rivet positions were clearly visible.

"The similarity or difference is to be judged through the eye alone, where the article in respect of which the design is applied is itself the object of purchase, through the eye of the purchaser."

The court emphasized that for a design to be infringed, the "essential parts" of the novelty must be present in the impugned article. When viewed as a whole, the court found the two fans substantially different, proving that minor aesthetic variations can be enough to escape the shadow of infringement.

3. Functionality is Not Novelty

A recurring theme in design litigation is the tension between aesthetic novelty and functional necessity. The court observed that every ceiling fan must have blades, a canopy, a shank, and a motor housing. These are basic functional features. To claim a monopoly, a plaintiff must show a "capricious" or "ornamental" addition that stands out from the usual crowd.

The court noted that the basic structure of a fan is bound to be the same across the industry. In the absence of a truly unique pattern or configuration that transcends utility, the court is hesitant to grant an injunction that might stifle competition in a standard product category.

4. The "Something More" Requirement for Passing Off

The judgment also clarified the high threshold for "passing off" in design cases. Since a design registration protects the shape of the product itself, a plaintiff claiming passing off must demonstrate "something more" than mere similarity in shape. They must prove that the "get-up" or the specific visual identity of the product has acquired such a reputation that consumers associate it exclusively with them.

In this case, Atomberg relied on a Chartered Accountant’s certificate to show sales figures. However, the court found this evidence insufficient because the figures covered multiple fan models, not just the one under the registered design. Without specific evidence linking goodwill to the registered design alone, the claim for passing off could not stand.

Conclusion

The Atomberg vs. Stove Kraft ruling serves as a cautionary tale for brands. It highlights that a registered design is not a blanket insurance policy against all similar-looking competitors. Success in the courtroom requires a disciplined adherence to the "registered" views and a clear distinction between what is functional and what is truly novel. For the industry, it reinforces the principle that while imitation may be flattery, the law requires a completed puzzle of evidence before it will intervene in the marketplace.