The Delhi High Court has asserted that, in a design infringement action under the Designs Act, novelty and infringement must be assessed by viewing the registered design as a whole and from the perspective of the instructed eye, and mosaicing of selected features from multiple prior arts is impermissible to attack validity. A prior art challenge cannot succeed merely because individual elements of the registered design are found scattered across earlier publications; and the prior art must disclose the design in a manner sufficient to negate novelty when the design is considered as applied to the article.
The Court held that for piracy, identity is not required: if the features that impart novelty and originality to the registered design are replicated in the defendant’s article, minor differences in non-essential features do not avoid infringement. On the facts, since none of the cited prior arts disclosed the plaintiff’s design as a whole and the defendant’s fan replicated the essential visual features of the plaintiff’s registered design, the Court held that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for interim injunction.
Finding that the plaintiff had in fact approached the Court before the actual launch date and should not be prejudiced on that account, the High Court restrained the defendant and all persons acting on its behalf from manufacturing, marketing, selling, including online sale, or using the registered design no. 393299-001 or any design identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s AEON fan series. The Court also directed that there shall be no further sales from the date of the order except products already sold, and directed the defendant to maintain and disclose sales and financial records in respect of infringing products sold from 06.04.2026 till date by affidavit in sealed cover within four weeks.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela emphasized that the burden to show lack of novelty or originality lies on the person asserting it; that a design must be compared as a whole; that prior publication sufficient to challenge validity must relate to the design itself as applied to an article; that mosaicing of prior art is impermissible; and that for infringement the comparison is to be undertaken from the standpoint of an instructed eye aware of prior art and of the features that impart novelty and originality to the registered design.
Applying these principles, the Bench held prima facie that the defendant’s challenge to novelty was unsustainable. It found that although the defendant relied on seven prior arts, none disclosed all the features of the plaintiff’s subject design, and none, when viewed as a composite whole, produced the same visual impression as the plaintiff’s AEON fan. The Bench observed that even the prior art identified by the defendant as the closest prior art did not disclose the same bottom canopy or bottom plate shape.
The Bench relied on the principle that Section 4(c) prohibits a combination of known designs/articles and does not permit dissection of a design into separate integers for comparison. On that basis, the Bench rejected the defendant’s attempt to attack novelty by picking individual features from multiple prior arts.
On infringement, the Bench visually examined the assembled products presented by the parties and held prima facie that an interim injunction was warranted. It found that, except for some distinction in the upper and lower canopies, the overall look and general features of both products did not give an impression of distinction. The Bench specifically observed similarity in the variable wide blade design, the matching curve at the motor end of the blade with the bottom cover radius, the fluidic curve and line at the tip end, the longitudinal line across the blade length, and the curved and fluidic form of the bottom cover. It also noted that the defendant had not taken a defence in its reply that its design was dissimilar to the plaintiff’s registered design.
The Bench therefore held that minor or peripheral differences in non-essential features could not protect a defendant where the essential features of the registered design appeared to have been copied.
The Bench further examined the issue of launch and found that the defendant’s own documents showed manufacture and transport from 07.03.2026 onwards, but actual retail sale only from 06.04.2026, i.e., after the first hearing on 30.03.2026. The Bench recorded that it was because of the statement made on behalf of the defendant that the product had already been launched that no ad interim injunction was granted on the first date.
Briefly, an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC has been filed seeking an interim injunction against alleged infringement of Orient Electric’s registered design bearing registration no. 393299-001 dated 09.04.2024 in Class 23-04 for a ceiling fan. The plaintiff stated that the novelty of the registered design resided in the shape and configuration of the ceiling fan, and not in its mechanical or functional aspects, and that the design was applied to its ‘AEON’ fan series launched in May 2024. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s proposed ‘GRACE’ series reproduced the dominant visual features of the AEON design, including the tapered blade geometry, compact hub structure, seamless blade-hub transition, and overall sculptural silhouette. The plaintiff also relied on its registration, sales, and promotional expenditure to assert entitlement to protection under the Designs Act, 2000.
The defendant resisted the injunction primarily on the ground that the plaintiff’s design lacked novelty and originality. It argued that the plaintiff had drawn from several prior published designs and had merely mosaiced known elements together, making the design non-registrable under Sections 4(c) and 19 of the Designs Act. The defendant contended that ceiling fan design leaves limited room for creativity, that the allegedly distinctive features were already commonly used in the industry, and that the plaintiff could not claim proprietary rights over a combination of pre-published features. The defendant also raised an issue as to the date of launch of its product, submitting that its product had already been launched, although the material later showed retail sales only from 06.04.2026.
Appearances:
Abhishek Malhotra, Senior Advocate with Angad Singh Dugal, Govind Singh Grewal, Anukriti Trivedi, Pranav Chadha, Kanishka Singh, Kartikay Dutta and Anukriti Trivedi, Advocates, for the Plaintiffs
Jayant Mehta, Senior Advocate with Chirag Ahluwalia, Suvan Jain and Mohit Maru, Advocates, for the Defendants
