The Bombay High Court granted interim relief to Travel Blue Products India Pvt. Ltd. in a design infringement and passing-off suit against Chinese retailer Miniso. Notably, this is among the first decisions interpreting the Supreme Court’s ruling in Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 780, clarifying the legal standard for distinguishing between functionality and aesthetic appeal in assessing the validity of a registered design.
The case revolved around Travel Blue’s registered “Tranquility Neck Pillow” , which the plaintiff alleged was being pirated and imitated by Miniso through a strikingly similar travel pillow sold in identical colours and configuration. The defendants argued that the design was purely functional and therefore not eligible for protection. They also cited prior art and alleged that Travel Blue had suppressed material facts to obtain ex parte relief.
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh rejected these defences, holding that while the pillow served a functional purpose, its distinctive shape, configuration, and aesthetic appeal were not dictated solely by function, and thus fell within the protection granted under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000. The Court emphasized that aesthetic elements can warrant design protection even if the product has utilitarian value, aligning with the principles outlined in the Supreme Court’s Cryogas judgment. It clarified that the dominant purpose test and the “only mode” test for functionality must be read harmoniously and reaffirmed that visual appeal judged by the eye remains central to registrability.
Addressing the suppression argument, the Court held that there was no material concealment by the plaintiffs in the interim stage and that full facts had been presented during the final hearing of the interim application. The allegation that the design was protected only due to a protruding pocket was also dismissed, the Court found that the pocket was a mechanical appendage, not the basis of the design’s novelty.
On passing-off, the Court held that the visual similarity between the products, coupled with Travel Blue’s long-standing market presence, sales, and promotional efforts, created a likelihood of consumer confusion. It found that Miniso’s adoption of a near-identical design in similar colours and shape amounted to misrepresentation and dishonest adoption, further supporting the grant of an injunction.
Accordingly, the Court restrained Miniso and its affiliates from manufacturing, marketing, or listing the impugned neck pillow and directed them to remove it from all e-commerce and promotional platforms, pending the final outcome of the suit.
Appearances :
Mr. Hiren Kamod a/w Mr. Bhushan Shah, Mr. Abhishek Nair i/by Mansukhlal Hiralal and Co. for Plaintiff
Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud a/w Mr. Darshan Patankar, Mr. Pranit Kulkarni, Mr. Aditya Mehta, Mr. Agneya Gopinath and Mr. Dhruv Chhajed i/by Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas for Defendant/Respondent.
Ms. Charushila Vaidya 2nd Assistant to Court Receiver present.