While holding that the competing fans must be assessed as a whole through the common purchaser’s eye, rather than dissected for minor differences, the Bombay High Court has restored the interim protection pending disposal of the suit by Atomberg Technologies in its design infringement and passing-off suit against Stove Kraft. The Court accepted the material demonstrating goodwill in Atomberg’s distinctive fan appearance and found a likelihood of consumers mistaking Stove Kraft’s fan for Atomberg’s product or an associated variant.
In this ceiling-fan dispute, the Court applied the purchaser/common-consumer eye test under Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000, and stated that substantial copying of the essential visual features could amount to obvious or fraudulent imitation despite minor differences in components or dimensions.
Since Atomberg had not claimed novelty in that mechanical attachment, the Court found that it was not visible when the fan hung from the ceiling and that the distinctive visual appeal lay in the blade shape and configuration. The Court also rejected the contention that comparison was confined to the Renesa Alpha model, finding that the registered design had been applied across Atomberg’s six models, notwithstanding additional features such as a remote, regulator or light.
The High Court clarified that an instructed eye familiar with prior art may assist in examining novelty or validity under Section 22(3), read with Section 19, but it could not replace the holistic purchaser-eye assessment of piracy or justify microscopic dissection of the registered design. Emphasising that actual confusion was unnecessary, the Court granted temporary injunctions and restored the Court Receiver pending disposal of the suit.
Briefly, Atomberg Technologies appealed against a Single Judge’s order refusing interim protection in its design infringement and passing-off suit against Stove Kraft. Atomberg held a registered design for a ceiling fan and alleged that Stove Kraft’s “Pigeon fan-tastic BLDC Ceiling fan” copied its distinctive shape and configuration. The Single Judge dismissed the interim application and discharged the Court Receiver, finding that Atomberg had not established the requirements for an interim injunction.
Atomberg’s case was that novelty lay in the overall combination of features, including petal-shaped blades, rather than any individual component. Stove Kraft disputed similarity and argued that Atomberg had compared its fan with subsequent variants instead of the registered design.
On physically examining the competing fans, the Division Bench comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande found their overall shape and configuration strikingly similar, despite minor differences in rivets, blade positioning and other components. It noted that the “Z-shaped” blade attachment, heavily relied upon by Stove Kraft, was not claimed as a novel feature and was not visible when the fan hung from the ceiling. The Court held that the Single Judge had wrongly dissected the designs into individual features instead of assessing their overall visual appearance.
The Court also found that Atomberg’s subsequent models embodied the same essential registered design features, and that the sales and promotional material demonstrated goodwill in the fan’s distinctive appearance. For passing off, the Court emphasised that likelihood of confusion was sufficient, and proof of actual confusion was unnecessary.
For assessing design piracy under Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000, the competing designs must be viewed as a whole through the eye of the purchaser or common consumer. In this ceiling-fan dispute, minor differences could not defeat protection where the essential visual features giving the registered design its distinctive appearance had been substantially copied. An “instructed eye” familiar with prior art may be relevant when examining novelty or validity under Section 22(3), read with Section 19, but could not replace the overall visual assessment required for piracy in this case, added the Court.
The Court also held that the petal-shaped blade configuration was not dictated solely by function, since air circulation could be achieved through other blade shapes. On the material before it, Atomberg established a case for interim protection against design infringement and passing off.
