Court Emphasizes Visual Impression Test by Average Consumer Eye for Design Infringement; Rejects Dissection of Design Features and Upholds Plaintiff's Registered Design Rights under the Designs Act, 2000
In a significant judgment delivered on October 16, 2026, the Bombay High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande) reversed the earlier order of the Single Judge and granted interim relief to Atomberg Technologies Private Limited ("Atomberg"), holding that Stove Kraft Limited's ceiling fan design infringed Atomberg's registered design and constituted passing off.
The case arose from Atomberg's suit alleging infringement of its registered design of a ceiling fan (registration no. 325322-001, Class 23-04) granted on January 1, 2020 under the Designs Act, 2000. Atomberg contended that its ceiling fan, marketed under the brand "Atomberg Renesa Alpha" and five other variants, featured a unique and novel combination of design elements, including petal-shaped blades with asymmetric tapering, subtle V-bends, a curved body silhouette, slanted canopy edges, and a cut-away circular base. The plaintiff claimed that Stove Kraft's "Pigeon fan-tastic BLDC Ceiling fan" was a fraudulent and obvious imitation of this registered design, causing confusion among consumers and amounting to both infringement and passing off.
The Single Judge had earlier dismissed Atomberg's interim application for injunction, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case or balance of convenience. The Single Judge analyzed the designs by dissecting individual features such as the number of rivets, shank profile, and canopy shape, concluding that the defendant's fan was substantially different from the registered design.
Upon appeal, the Division Bench found that the Single Judge had erred in dissecting the designs and not applying the correct test for infringement under the Designs Act. The Court reiterated the settled legal position that the test for design infringement is based on the overall visual impression "judged solely by the eye" of an average purchaser, ignoring minor or trivial differences in details. The Court emphasized that the design's novelty and distinctiveness lie in the combination of features creating an aesthetic appeal rather than in isolated technical or mechanical components. It held that the "Z"-shaped shank profile emphasized by Stove Kraft was a mechanical aspect not claimed as novel by Atomberg and not relevant for infringement analysis.
The Division Bench undertook a side-by-side comparison of the rival fans and found that the essential design features-especially the petal-shaped blades with asymmetric tapering and subtle V-bend, the curved body silhouette, slanted canopy edges, and cut-away circular base-were strikingly similar. Minor differences such as rivet count or shank cross-section did not preclude a finding of infringement. The Court further observed that the registered design had acquired substantial goodwill and reputation in the market, supported by sales figures exceeding Rs. 300 crores over the relevant years.
On the issue of passing off, the Court held that the substantial similarity of design was likely to cause confusion among consumers, who would mistake Stove Kraft's product for that of Atomberg or believe it was connected with Atomberg. The Court stressed that actual confusion need not be proved; the likelihood of confusion suffices.
The Court also clarified the distinction between the test for novelty (to be applied by an "instructed eye" familiar with prior art) and the test for infringement (to be applied from the perspective of the ordinary purchaser with average intelligence and imperfect recollection). While the former determines validity of the registered design, the latter governs whether infringement or piracy has occurred.
Accordingly, the Division Bench set aside the Single Judge's order, restored the interim injunction previously granted ex parte, and reinstated the appointment of the Court Receiver to seize and take custody of infringing goods. The Court restrained Stove Kraft, its directors, agents, dealers, and others from manufacturing, selling, exhibiting, advertising, or dealing in ceiling fans infringing or deceptively similar to Atomberg's registered design until the final disposal of the suit.
This judgment reinforces the importance of protecting original industrial designs and acknowledges the role of aesthetic appeal and overall visual impression in determining infringement. It also underscores that minor variations or mechanical features not claimed in the registered design cannot defeat claims of piracy. The decision is likely to have far-reaching implications for design protection and enforcement in India's rapidly growing consumer goods market.
Bottom Line:
Designs Act, 2000 - Registered design of ceiling fan - Infringement and passing off - Test of infringement is visual impression judged solely by the eye of an average purchaser - Plaintiff's fan with unique petal-shaped blades and specific shape and configuration - Defendant's fan found strikingly similar in overall design - Minor differences in details like number of rivets or shank profile do not negate infringement - Plaintiff entitled to interim injunction restraining defendant from manufacturing and selling infringing fan - Passing off established on likelihood of confusion among consumers due to similarity in design - Distinction between test of novelty (instructed eye) and infringement (average consumer eye) emphasized - Functionality not a relevant factor in design infringement - Registration of design confers exclusive rights to use and prevent piracy of the registered design.
Statutory provision(s): Designs Act, 2000 Sections 2(d), 2(g), 4, 11, 19, 22
