M/S. Orient Electric Limited vs Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Order reserved on: 06.05.2026
Order delivered on: 14.05.2026
CS(COMM) 331/2026
M/S. ORIENT ELECTRIC LIMITED .....Plaintiff
versus
CROMPTON GREAVES CONSUMER
ELECTRICALS LIMITED .....Defendant
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: Mr. Abhishek Malhotra, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Angad Singh Dugal, Mr. Govind Singh Grewal, Ms.
Anukriti Trivedi, Mr. Pranav Chadha, Ms. Kanishka
Singh, Mr. Kartikay Dutta and Ms. Anukriti Trivedi,
Advocates.
For the Defendant: Mr. Jayant Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Chirag
Ahluwalia, Mr. Suvan Jain and Mr. Mohit Maru,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
O R D E R
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
I.A. 8378/2026 (Under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2, CPC)
1. This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1
& 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( ‘CPC’ ) seeking interim injunction
against the defendant, restraining infringement of registered design
no.393299-001 dated 09.04.2024 in Class 23-04 in respect of application of
such design to CEILING FAN.
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 331/2026 Page 1 of 37
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
17:54:24
2. The plaintiff is a part of the growing USD 3 billion multinational
conglomerate - CKA Birla Group (formerly known as the CK Birla Group)
which is claimed to be one of India’s largest and most respected business
houses, spanning across 5 continents with a presence in diverse sectors,
including technology, automotive, home and building and healthcare. It is
claimed that with over 35000 employees and 52 manufacturing facilities, the
Group has been a distinguished name in the Indian fan industry for over 60
years now. The plaintiff is carrying on business as a manufacturer and
marketer of fans, ventilating apparatus, lighting solutions, home appliances,
switchgear, wires, etc and claims to have emerged as one of the largest
manufacturer and exporter of fans in the country.
3. In the domestic market, the plaintiff claims to have a well-organized
distribution network reaching 1,25,000 retail outlets and a strong service
network covering more than 450 cities. In addition to India, the company
claims to enjoy a market presence in more than 30 countries. The company
claims to draw a sizable advantage from proprietary production facilities
enabling it to manufacture first-to-market, consumer-centric products with
best-in-class quality and performance. The plaintiff further claims to be the
largest exporter of fans from the country. It is claimed that the plaintiff’s
predecessor had used the trademark ‘Orient’ since 1954 continuously and
extensively in respect of its various goods. The plaintiff also owns and
operates the website www.orientelectric.com, which is interactive.
4. It is claimed that the plaintiff’s achievements in the field of exports are
regularly recognized and awarded as Star Performer by EEPC India (agency
for Export and Promotion of Engineering goods) since the last decade and it is
also rated as ‘STAR EXPORT HOUSE’ by the Ministry of Commerce and
Industry, Government of India. Further, the details of annual revenue and
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 331/2026 Page 2 of 37
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
17:54:24
sales promotional expenditure in relation to fan’s division is provided in para
19 of the plaint.
5. It is stated that the plaintiff obtained the design registration vide
Registration Certificate bearing no.393299-001 dated 09.04.2024 in Class 23-
04 in respect of application of such design to CEILING FAN, under the
Designs Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ ) which is valid and
subsisting. It is stated that the novelty resides in the shape and configuration
of the ceiling fan as illustrated, and not in the mechanical or functional
aspects of the fan. Thus, it is claimed that the protection extends to the visual
features of the article as perceived by the eye, including the overall
arrangement, proportions, and aesthetic composition of the fan’s components,
which collectively form the distinctive appearance of the ‘AEON’ series of
ceiling fans manufactured and marketed by the plaintiff.
6. It is stated that following an extensive research and development of the
‘AEON’ Fans Series from 2022 to 2024 and the plaintiff incurring substantial
expenditures to the tune of Rs.2 Crores, the registration of the aforementioned
design was obtained in the year 2024. The development of the ‘AEON’ Fan
series commenced in 2022, beginning with the creation of industrial drawings
and computer-aided designs (CAD) models by the research and development
team. This was followed by several design iterations and prototype
development. It is stated that once the design was finalised, a preliminary
design search was conducted to ensure compliance with the novelty
requirements under the Act and subsequently, the Registration Certificate was
granted by the Controller General of Designs on 09.04.2024. Pursuant thereto,
the plaintiff introduced the ‘AEON’ Fan Series of decorative ceiling fans in
the Indian market in May, 2024. It is stated that subsequently, the plaintiff
also obtained additional registration for a variant of the ‘AEON’ Fan Series
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 331/2026 Page 3 of 37
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
17:54:24
vide Registration Certificate bearing no.443637-001 dated 09.01.2025 and
launched it commercially in April, 2025.
7. Plaintiff claims that the cumulative sales for the ‘AEON’ Fans Series as
on 20.03.2026 is approximately Rs.88,21,53,038/-. Further, it is claimed that
the plaintiff has expended a huge amount on advertising and sales promotion
for its products and has incurred an expenditure of Rs.13,123 Lakhs for the
fans division for the period 2025 to 2026 (upto February).
8. It is stated that the ‘AEON’ Fans Series embodies protectable elements
stipulated under Section 2(d) of the Act and the design of this fans series is
characterized by a harmonious integration of its structural components,
including the blade configuration, hub assembly, motor housing, and
decorative lower cap, which together create a distinctive visual identity. Thus,
it is claimed that the novelty lies in the aesthetic arrangement and visual
presentation of the fan’s constituent elements, which are intended to attract
consumers in the decorative ceiling fan market.
9. Plaintiff claims that it recently became aware that the defendant is in
the process of introducing a new range of ceiling fans under the name
‘GRACE’ Series. Upon examining the design of the defendant’s ‘GRACE’
Fans Series, the plaintiff discovered that the said products reproduce the
dominant visual features of the plaintiff’s registered ‘AEON’ Fan design. It is
claimed that the defendant has replicated the distinctive configuration of the
‘AEON’ fan including the tapered blade geometry, the compact hub structure,
the seamless blade-hub transition and the overall sculptural silhouette of the
fan. It is stated that the defendant with the intent to take advantage of the
hard-earned market reputation and goodwill garnered by the plaintiff has
deliberately created imitation of the plaintiff’s aforesaid Fan having registered
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 331/2026 Page 4 of 37
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
17:54:24
design, to misrepresent and pass off its goods as that of the plaintiff and cause
confusion as to the source of the goods.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF:-
10. Mr. Abhishek Malhotra, learned senior counsel appearing for the
plaintiff stated that the defendant has infringed the registered design of the
plaintiff in respect of a ceiling fan called ‘AEON’ Fan Series which has given
rise to the present suit. He stated that the plaintiff had conceived and created a
novel and original design which was registered on 09.04.2024 and the product
‘AEON’ Fan was launched thereafter. He stated that the design registration
certificate which was issued to the plaintiff expressly records that the novelty
resides in the shape and configuration of the ceiling fan as illustrated and not
in the mechanical or functional aspects of the said products.
11. Explaining the novelty of the design which is embodied in the shape
and configuration, he contended that the said design is characterized by a
harmonious integration of its structural components including the blade
configuration, hub assembly, motor housing and decorative lower cap which
constitute a distinctive visual identity.
12. Dilating further, he drew attention to para 25 of the plaint wherein the
distinctive characteristics of the registered design has been elaborated
succinctly. Learned senior counsel emphasized that it is trite that while
evaluating design infringement, it is the visual appearance between the two
products which alone needs to be considered. In order to explain these
similarities, he relied upon the following table:-
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 331/2026 Page 5 of 37
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
17:54:24
13. He further stated the plaintiff claims that the defendant has slavishly
copied and infringed the registered design of the plaintiff’s ‘AEON’ Fans
Series. In order to substantiate and support his contentions, learned senior
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 331/2026 Page 6 of 37
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
17:54:24
counsel referred to various provisions of the Act, particularly Section
22(1)(a), 22(2)(b), 22(3), to contend that in case of piracy of a registered
design, the registrant is entitled to bring a suit for injunction alongwith
seeking recovery of damages for any such contravention. He fairly submitted
that in case such a suit is preferred by the registrant, the defendant is entitled
to set up a defence under any of the provisions of Section 19 of the Act,
which provides grounds for cancellation of registration.
14. Referring to the reply of the defendant, Mr. Malhotra states that none of
such grounds as available in Section 19 of the Act, have been taken as a
defence by the defendant. According to him, except to contend that the
plaintiff has picked up various elements of prior published arts and mosaiced
them together, which would result in cancellation of the registration of design
for lack of novelty or originality, the defendant has not contended that the
infringing design of the defendant’s product does not violate/infringe the
registered design of the plaintiff’s product i.e., ‘AEON’ Fans.
15. Learned senior counsel would contend that the aforesaid argument of
the defendant is inconceivable for the reason that at the time of evaluation as
to whether a design is being infringed, the Court would assess the complete
design as a whole which is registered with that of the infringing design
applied on the product and not the separate or individual elements of the said
design. In support of the said contention, learned senior counsel relied upon
the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in TTK Prestige Ltd. vs.
KCM Appliances Pvt. Ltd. decided on 13.04.2023 in CS(COMM) 697/2022.
16. He contended that in TTK Prestige (supra), the Court, in para 38.13,
has in great detail examined the purport of the Act and has succinctly laid
down the guidelines and parameters as to how and in what manner,
infringement of a registered design is to be evaluated. He further contended
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 331/2026 Page 7 of 37
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
17:54:24
that in case the parameters laid down in TTK Prestige (supra) are applied to
the facts of the present case and the registered design of the plaintiff is
juxtaposed against the infringing design of the product of the defendant, it
would become crystal clear that the design of the defendant clearly infringes
the registered design of the plaintiff.
17. That apart, learned senior counsel had handed over to the Bench a
comparative chart of the plaintiff’s registered design vis-à-vis the alleged
prior publications relied upon by the defendant and enclosed alongwith the
reply filed by it. While referring to various pictographical representations of
comparison between the registered design of the plaintiff and those of the
prior arts, learned senior counsel emphatically contended that the defendant
has not provided any prior art which, as a whole, matches or maps with the
registered design of the plaintiff. In fact, according to him, all the prior
publications placed on record by the defendant in its defence only displays
one of the many elements of the plaintiff’s design. According to him, this is
proscribed by TTK Prestige (supra) inasmuch as in order for the registered
design of a party to become liable for cancellation on the ground of prior
published art, it has to necessarily be juxtaposed against a previously
published prior as a whole, which is identical or similar in all elements and
not in bits and pieces. He, thus, contended by relying on the Chart handed
over that the prior arts relied upon by the defendant are irrelevant and
inconsequential.
CONTENTIONS OF THE DEFENDANT:-
18. Appearing for the defendant, Mr. Jayant Mehta, learned senior counsel
refuted the submissions made on behalf of the appellant.
19. At the outset, Mr. Mehta, learned senior counsel would contend that the
mechanical contrivance that a fan is, itself leaves little room for creativity,
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 331/2026 Page 8 of 37
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
17:54:24
much less for a manufacturer to churn out novel, new and original designs. In
other words, he would submit that creativity in designing a fan is very limited.
He would contend that in the present case, the design of the plaintiff though
registered has neither any originality nor novelty. He expressed his doubt as
to how and in what manner the design of the plaintiff was registered in the
first place.
20. Dilating on the aforesaid argument, learned senior counsel contended
that the design of the plaintiff could not have been registered for the reason
that not only does the said product of the plaintiff has elements of prior
registered design of the defendant but also of many prior arts wherefrom
different elements have been picked up and used by mosaicing a design,
which the plaintiff claims to be novel and original. He would contend, and
vehemently so, that the design of the plaintiff being based on a number of
prior publications, is ex-facie non-registrable. His contention is that for a
design to pass the test of a valid registration, it has to be novel and original,
both elements being read together.
21. Mr. Mehta invited attention to the tabular chart placed on record by the
defendant showing prior arts wherefrom the plaintiff is alleged to have picked
up essential individual elements, which have been mosaiced together to create
a design, which is now claimed as novel. He attempted to demonstrate that
each of such prior arts were placed to compare certain essential elements of
such prior arts alongwith the elements of the plaintiff’s registered design, to
contend that it was easily demonstrable that there is nothing novel or original
in the registered design of the plaintiff. In support thereof, he invited attention
to Section 19(c) of the Designs Act to contend that as per the provisions, the
defendant is entitled to challenge the registration of a design of the plaintiff
on the ground of lack of novelty and originality. Particularly, he emphasized
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 331/2026 Page 9 of 37
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
17:54:24
that the ground that the design is not a new or original design or that the
design is not registrable under the Act is available to the defendant as its
defence. He would contend that it is in this context that the defendant has
placed on record prior arts which clearly document that the design of the
plaintiff is neither new nor original and clearly not registrable, as the plaintiff
appears to have pirated essential elements of various prior arts and mosaiced
them together to form the subject design. He would contend that the
plaintiff’s design falling foul of the provisions of Section 19 of the Act, the
allegation based on Section 22 of the Act, of piracy against the defendant
cannot sustain.
22. Stressing the aforesaid issue further, learned senior counsel compared
each element of the plaintiff’s registered design with various prior arts to
demonstrate how the elements of the plaintiff’s design was already available
and published previously, rendering the design of the plaintiff unregistrable.
23. Mr. Mehta would contend that the alleged features described by the
plaintiff such as sculpted blades, cylindrical motor housing and hub
integration are all published previously and commonly used in the ceiling fan
industry. Thus, the plaintiff is precluded from claiming any proprietary right
in respect of a combination of pre-published designs or elements in the prior
arts.
24. In any case, he would contend that the said product is only a trade
variant or trivial addition/alteration to already published prior arts or
combination of elements thereof, lending credence to the contention of the
defendant that the design itself could not have been registered. Learned senior
counsel relied upon Section 4(c) of the Act which prohibits registration of a
design which is not significantly distinguishable from known designs or
combination of known designs. He would also contend that the description
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 331/2026 Page 10 of 37
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
17:54:24
and alleged features listed by the plaintiff are purely functional, technical and
performance related characteristics of a ceiling fan, and nothing more.
25. Additionally, learned senior counsel contended that it would hinder the
trade of the competing parties in the business of manufacture of ceiling fans if
a non-novel design is permitted to be granted registration or protection by this
Court.
26. He further contended that the comparison between the two rival designs
administered on the products has to be undertaken from the perspective of an
instructed eye and applying the same, it would be apparent that the plaintiff’s
design is neither new nor original but a copy of prior published arts.
27. So far as the controversy regarding the date of launch of the
defendant’s product is concerned, he would submit that though on the first
date of hearing i.e., 30.03.2026, the counsel for the defendant had made a
statement that the defendants had already launched its product on or about
20.03.2026, the affidavits filed by the defendant alongwith invoices etc.,
discloses that the product was made available and sold by the retailer on and
from 06.04.2026. However, he further submitted that the statement made by
the counsel may not be incorrect as the manufacturers of the defendant had
transported the batches of the said product to the defendant’s warehouse on
various dates commencing from 07.03.2026 and the following dates. As such,
according to him, there was no deliberate misstatement of fact. He would
contend that at best, it could be a case of miscommunication while informing
this Court as to the actual date of launch. Thus, he would contend that the
affidavits sought for by this Court and filed by the defendant align with the
statement made by the learned counsel and with the first affidavit dated
31.03.2026 filed on behalf of the defendant.
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 331/2026 Page 11 of 37
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
17:54:24
28. He would also contend that the defendant is not a fly by night operator
and has its own standing of more than a century of its existence and
establishing its substantial goodwill and reputation in the market.
29. Learned senior counsel relied upon the judgments of M/s. B. Chawla &
Sons vs. M/s. Bright Auto Industries: 1980 SCC OnLine Del 320 , Steelbird
Hi-Tech India Ltd. vs. S.P.S. Gambhir & Ors.: 2014 SCC OnLine Del 821
and Jayson Industries & Ors. vs. Crown Craft (India) Pvt. Ltd.: Neutral
Citation 2023:DHC:4343 in support of his contentions.
REJOINDER ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:-
30. Mr. Malhotra, learned senior counsel, in respect of the judgments in
M/s. B. Chawla (supra) and Steelbird (supra) relied upon by the defendant,
would contend that these judgments were considered by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in TTK Prestige (supra), particularly in paras 38.6 and
38.11 and the same would actually enure to the benefit of the plaintiff rather
than the defendant.
31. In order to reiterate and reaffirm his contentions regarding novelty and
originality of the plaintiff’s design, learned senior counsel referred to paras 24
and 25 of the plaint whereby the plaintiff has given a detailed description of
how the subject design would constitute a novel, new and original design. He
would contend that the defendant in its reply to the present application has
nowhere rebutted or contended that the design of the defendant does not
infringe the design of the plaintiff nor is there any averment that the design of
the two rival products is not similar. In fact, he would contend that the
defendant is relying only upon the prior publications and that too, certain
elements of each prior publication, to contend that the plaintiff’s design is
only an outcome of mosaicing. According to learned senior counsel, unless
the defendant clearly places on record application of the subject design on an
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 331/2026 Page 12 of 37
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
17:54:24
individual prior publication in accordance with the provisions of the Act, it
cannot raise the defence of lack of novelty based on prior publications. It was
contended that the defendant is prohibited from comparing the design of the
plaintiff with bits and pieces of elements of various prior arts. According to
him, this was completely prohibited and proscribed by this Court in TTK
Prestige (supra), particularly sub-para (xviii) of para 38.13.
32. To the contention of the defendant that the product by its very nature
does not leave much room or scope for creativity, the plaintiff contended that
application of even a minimalistic creativity which is novel would tantamount
to a new and original design which is entitled to registration.
33. So far as the contention regarding the controversy of date of launch of
defendant’s product is concerned, learned senior counsel would submit that
the defendant, by its actions or conduct and various affidavits placed on
record, has evidenced the blatant falsehood presented before this Court of
launch of the defendant’s products on 20.03.2026. Referring to various
affidavits filed by the defendant, learned senior counsel would attempt to
demonstrate that on the one hand, in the first affidavit, the defendant had
asserted that the product with the infringing design of the defendant was
launched on or before 20.03.2026 across at least four (4) States in India
namely, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka and Gujarat and placed Geo
Tagged photographs of the retail shops where the product was claimed to be
offered for sale. However, on the other hand, the invoices and other
documents placed on record by way of an affidavit by the defendant clearly
evidenced that the actual launch and sale of the product of the defendant
commenced only on 06.04.2026. According to learned senior counsel, this
was a deliberate suppression and misstatement with a view to mislead the
Court and interfere with the administration of justice.
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 331/2026 Page 13 of 37
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
17:54:24
34. He would contend that on the statement by the counsel for the
defendant on 30.03.2026 i.e. the first hearing, the counsel for the plaintiff did
not press the application seeking interim injunction and agreed to the
opportunity being granted to the defendant to place its written reply to the
said application.
35. In the above circumstances, learned senior counsel would contend that
the mere fact that the defendant had already launched its product in the
market before any interim order was passed, cannot come in the way of this
Court in passing ad-interim injunction order against the defendant if
otherwise, the plaintiff is able to make out a case for such relief. He would
contend that as of now, the plaintiff directs its arguments only to this relief,
reserving its rights to file an appropriate application at a later stage for
initiation of appropriate proceedings against the defendant.
ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION:-
36. This Court has heard the arguments of Mr. Abhishek Malhotra, learned
senior counsel for the plaintiff and Mr. Jayant Mehta, learned senior counsel
for the defendant and with their valuable assistance has perused and examined
the material on record.
37. The judgment in TTK Prestige (supra) rendered by my esteemed and
learned brother C. Hari Shankar, J, is a locus classicus on how under the
provisions of the Designs Act, a particular dispute on designs is to be viewed,
considered and analyzed, in order to appreciate the rival contentions in such
cases. After having considered a catena of judgments in the context of the
Designs Act, the parameters or, in the words of the learned author, “The
takeaway”, were succinctly distilled and presented for easy understanding in
para 38.13 of TTK Prestige (supra) . It would be worthwhile to extract, in its
entirety, para 38.13 of TTK Prestige (supra) . The same reads thus:-
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 331/2026 Page 14 of 37
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
17:54:24
“ 38.13 The takeaway
It would be useful to enumerate the principles which emerged from the
decisions cited hereinabove, as a simple application of these principles is
sufficient to arrive at a prima facie conclusion regarding the merits of the
rival stands before me in the present case. As the definitive principles of
law, which apply, are sufficiently clear from these decisions, I have avoided
referring to interlocutory orders passed by Single Benches of this Court
which, at best, can only have persuasive value in the interests of preserving
consistency. The following principles, therefore, emerge:
(i) The sole purpose of the Designs Act is protection of novel and original
designs, for the benefit of the person who has expended time, research
and labour in conceiving it.
(ii) While ocular appeal is the definitive test of a valid design, what may
appeal to one may appear bizarre to another. The corollary would,
therefore, be that the Court, while examining the ocular appeal of a
design, should not apply its own subjective standards.
(iii) The Designs Act does not protect principles of operation or invention,
which form subject matter of patent protection.
(iv) A design, under the Designs Act, is not intended to stand on its own as
an artistic work. It must be copied by embodiment in a commercially
produced artefact. There can be no design, without an article to which
it is applied. What matters is the visual image conveyed by the
manufactured article. While applying these principles, the Court is
required to be guided by the definition of “article” and “design”, as
contained in clauses (a) and (d) of Section 2 of the Designs Act.
(v) Clause (a) of Section 2 defines “article” as, inter alia, “any article of
manufacture”. Any part of an article which is capable of being made
and sold separately would be an article in itself.
(vi) “Design” is defined, in clause (d) of Section 2 as meaning only the
features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or composition of
lines of colours applied to any article. A design cannot, therefore, be a
mere concept or idea. While it is true that the Designs Act protects the
concept or idea, which is new or original, the right to such protection
enures only when the idea becomes a “design” under the Designs Act,
which requires its application to an article. Sans any article, therefore,
there can be no design. The design must be intended to produce an
article by industrial application, though the “design” is not the article
itself, but “the conceptual design containing the features of a shape,
configuration, pattern, composition of lines etc”.
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 331/2026 Page 15 of 37
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
17:54:24
(vii) The burden to show that a design is not entitled to registration for
want of novelty originality is on the person so asserting. Novelty and
originality necessarily predicate the absence of any prior publication
of the design, or of the design having earlier been made known to the
public.
(viii) Prior publication cannot be urged merely on the basis of a drawing or
representation of a design, in the absence of any evidence to show that
the said design, or drawing, had in fact been applied to an article. The
court has, therefore, to assess the existence of prior publication of the
design asserted by the plaintiff, or its novelty and originality vis-à-vis
prior art, on the basis of a design, published prior in point of time or
known to the public prior to the registration of the suit design, which
had been applied to an article. What was required to be visualised, in
the minds‘ eye of the Court, while examining a plea of prior publication
or want of novelty and originality vis-à-vis prior art is, therefore, not a
prior design in abstract, but a prior design as applied to an article. The
Court must, therefore, be able to visualise the article, as well as the
design of the article, before coming to a conclusion on the aspect of
prior publication or of novelty and originality vis-à-vis prior art. The
“judging of the design” has, therefore, to be “in the form of the finished
article solely by the eye”. It was for this reason that, in Bharat Glass
Tubes, the Supreme Court upheld the view, of the learned Single Judge
of the High Court, that prior publication, or want of novelty and
originality vis-à-vis prior art, could not be urged on the basis of
drawings or designs downloaded from the website of the UK Patent
office, even if the said drawings or designs were substantially similar to
the suit design.
(ix) Registration of a design amounts to facial satisfaction of the existence
of novelty and originality in the design, as well as the absence of any
prior publication thereof.
(x) Prior publication, in order to constitute a legitimate basis to challenge
the validity of a design, had to be of the design itself. This is clear from
the use of the words “that it has been published…”, employed in
Section 19(1)(b) as well as the words “a design which has not been
disclosed to the public...” in Section 4 (a) of the Designs Act. Unless,
therefore, the suit design itself has been earlier published, no case of
invalidity of the suit design on the ground of prior publication is made
out. Prior publication of a similar design, irrespective of the degree of
similarity, would not suffice.
(xi) Publication must be “in a tangible form or use or in any other way”.
Publication by use would arise where the design is translated into a
finished article by an industrial process or means. The words “tangible
form” and “any other way” are, however, of much wider import.
Publication in a paper form, without the actual article being before the
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 331/2026 Page 16 of 37
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
17:54:24
Court would also be subsumed within these expressions. However, the
publication must be such as would enable the Court to visualise the
article to which the design is intended to be applied. A publication
which is wanting in clarity, and which requires actual application to an
article for it to be completely understood cannot be regarded as “prior
publication” on its own. “Tangible form” refers to a specific physical
form or shape as applied to an article and not merely the ability to
replicate, convert or give a physical shape of the design, though actual
use of the article, to which the design supply, is not necessary. The
design should not be on paper/document alone, but should be
recognisable; in other words, it should have the same impact in the
public as a finished article will, when judged solely by the eye. In other
words, if the design is on paper then it must exist upon paper in such a
way that the shape or other features of the article are made clear to the
eye; the visual impact of the image should be similar to that which
would exist when the design is seen as applied to a physical object in
tangible form.
(xii) “Publication” could, therefore, be either by prior use of the design, by
selling or displaying articles to which the design has been applied or by
paper publication of one sort or another.
(xiii) Prior publication of an earlier design of the proprietor of an existing
design would not denude the existing design of novelty, or render it
invalid for prior publication. The proprietor of a registered design is
entitled to apply for registration of the same design, or of a design with
modifications or variations not sufficient to affect its identity, in respect
of another article. The later design does not get destroyed by the earlier
design; however, the term of protection extended to both designs would
be the same. Thus, evergreening of designs would be avoided. This
legal position, recognised in Reckitt Benckiser, also finds place in
Sections 6 (3) and (4) of the Designs Act.
(xiv) A design which exists in the public domain, but the application of
which, to an article, is new, would be novel. It is not necessary,
therefore, that the design is “totally new”. An existing design, apply to
an article in a new manner, in which manner it has not been earlier
applied to any article, would also be entitled to registration. In order
for prior publication to destroy novelty, it is essential that the
publication must suggest, explicitly or implicitly by context that the
design should be applied to an article. Further, the manner in which the
design is to be applied to the article should also be apparent from the
representation of the design, cited as prior publication.
(xv) At the same time, the design, in order to be entitled to registration,
must be new vis-à-vis prior art. The novelty must be substantial, not
trivial or infinitesimal. Ultimately, it would be for the Court to
compare prior art and the asserted design to determine whether the
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 331/2026 Page 17 of 37
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
17:54:24
asserted design actually possesses novelty vis-à-vis prior art, or is
merely the prior art with mild, trivial or trade variants.
(xvi) The test to assess whether the features of a design, which are not
present in prior art, actually impart novelty or are mere trade variants,
is the test enunciated in Phillips, which is that if it is common practice
to have, or not to have, spikes in the soles of running shoes, a man does
not make a new and original design out of an old type of running shoes
by putting spikes into the soles.
(xvii) Prior publication, or novelty and originality of a design vis-à-vis
prior art, has to be assessed on the basis of the features which impart,
to the design, novelty and originality. Prior publication of stray
features of the design, which do not impart novelty and originality to
it, in an earlier document or at an earlier point of time, would not
constitute “prior publication” or suffice to invalidate the design for
want of novelty and originality.
(xviii) Mosaicing of prior art designs is impermissible. Novelty cannot be
attacked by combining individual elements of prior designs. The
earlier design, cited as prior publication, and on the basis of which
the novelty of the suit design is being questioned, must be disclosed in
a single prior document, or more than one document, provided
reference to one is contained in the other.
(xix) Registration of a design is article specific. What is protected is,
therefore, not the artistic effort solely in the form of an idea, but as an
embodiment in a commercially produced artefact.
(xx) While examining these aspects, the Court is required to be conscious of
the fact that certain articles have, by nature of the function that they are
required to perform, to necessarily possess common attributes as, for
example, footwear. While it is difficult to envisage serious artistic
improvements in the shape and configuration of footwear, given the fact
that feet, as a rule, are similar in shape, footwear, which is otherwise
novel in design is entitled to registration. In such cases, one cannot
read the registration as invalid on the ground of want of novelty merely
because, in respect of attributes which must necessarily be common to
all such articles, there are prior examples. The Court has, therefore, in
such cases, to discern the features which would lend, to such
commonplace articles, novelty and originality, and examine whether
those features have earlier been published in prior art.
(xxi) Imitation does not imply identity. In order to constitute piracy, a
design need not be identical to another. The features which impart
novelty to a design, in another article, would tantamount to
infringement/piracy. The mere fact that, with respect to other, less
significant details which do not impart novelty or originality to a
design, there may be differences between the suit design and the
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 331/2026 Page 18 of 37
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
17:54:24
impugned design, would not imply that the impugned design is not
infringing in nature.
(xxii) While a purely functional design is not entitled to registration, a
design which has both functional and aesthetic attributes, is so entitled.
(xxiii) While the perspective of the consumer, who views the suit design with
an instructed eye which is aware of prior art, undoubtedly forms the
definitive test to assess infringement, the issue of whether the customer
would purchase the product for its aesthetic appeal for its utilitarian
advantages is irrelevant. Where the suit design possesses aesthetic
value, and the novel features that lend it such value are replicated in
the defendant‘s design, piracy has taken place.
(xxiv) A defendant who seeks to register an identical design cannot question
the validity of the design of the plaintiff, or its entitlement to
registration.
(xxv) There is a subtle difference between the test which would apply when
examining validity of the suit design vis-à-vis prior art and
infringement of the suit design by the impugned design of the defendant.
This difference arises essentially because the validity of the suit design
vis-à-vis prior art is being examined at a point of time prior to the
registration of the suit design, whereas the aspect of infringement of the
suit design by the defendant‘s design is examined vis-à-vis the
certificate of registration of the suit design, and the features of novelty
and originality which have been certified to be existing in the suit
design. Prior publication would invalidate the suit design only if the
suit design itself has been published prior in point of time. Invalidation
on the ground of want of novelty and originality, on the other hand,
does not require prior publication of the suit design itself. What it does
require, however, is the existence of a prior design which, when applied
to an article, would reveal that, except for trade variants, there is no
difference between prior art and the suit design. While examining
infringement, on the other hand, the Court is required to examine the
design and the prior art vis-à-vis, as it were. The eye with which the
aspect of infringement is examined is an instructed eye, which is aware
of prior art and of the features which impart, to the suit design, novelty
and originality vis-à-vis prior art. The comparison of the design of the
defendant‘s product with the suit design has to be made from the
perspective of such an instructed eye thus examined, if it is seen that the
features which impart, to the suit design, novelty and originality vis-à-
vis prior art, and as certified in the certificate of registration of the suit
design, stand replicated in the design of the defendant, the defendant is
guilty of piracy.”
[Emphasis supplied]
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 331/2026 Page 19 of 37
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
17:54:24
38. In the opinion of this Court, and as would be required to be considered
by this Court in the context of the rival submissions in the present case, it
appears that the burden to show that the suit design is not entitled to
registration for want of novelty or originality is on the defendant; the
comparison with the prior publication in order to constitute a legitimate
challenge to the validity of a design has to be of the design per se and not
various essential elements of various prior arts to a composite design; unless
the suit design in its entirety itself has been published earlier, no case of
invalidity, at least prima facie , can be made out; certain stray features of a
prior art may also not constitute “prior publication” or suffice to invalidate the
suit design; mosaicing of essential or certain elements of different prior arts to
contend that the suit design is a conglomeration of essential elements of prior
arts and, therefore, neither novel nor original, is impermissible and prohibited
and most importantly, so far as certain products are concerned, it is possible
that such products may, by their very nature, limit creativity and as such, the
doctrine of de minimis may not apply in every case.
39. The comparison sought to be made by the defendants of the design of
the plaintiff with the elements of the prior arts encircled in red, has been
placed on record and appears to be relevant for reproduction:-
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 331/2026 Page 20 of 37
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
17:54:24
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 331/2026 Page 21 of 37
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
17:54:24
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 331/2026 Page 22 of 37
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
17:54:24
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 331/2026 Page 23 of 37
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
17:54:24
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 331/2026 Page 24 of 37
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
17:54:24
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 331/2026 Page 25 of 37
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
17:54:24
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 331/2026 Page 26 of 37
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
17:54:24
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 331/2026 Page 27 of 37
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
17:54:24
40. After perusing the aforesaid comparison of the plaintiff’s design with
various prior arts, this Court is of the view that a design must be assessed as a
whole, and novelty may reside in the unique combination and visual
arrangement of known elements.
41. The defendant has relied on seven (7) different prior arts. However, it is
pertinent to note from the aforesaid table referred to by the defendant that
none of the cited prior arts discloses all the features of the subject design. As
per the case of the defendant, the cited prior art “Atomberg Renesa Enzel”
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 331/2026 Page 28 of 37
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
17:54:24
(Published at least since 26.05.2021) can be considered as the closest prior
art, however, the same does not disclose the design of the bottom canopy.
Even the shape of the bottom cover is not disclosed. Further, the shape of the
bottom plate of the said prior art is also different from the subject design of
the plaintiff’s AEON Fan.
42. It is important to note that none of the prior arts as cited in the aforesaid
table, when viewed as a composite whole, produces the same visual
impression as that of the plaintiff’s AEON Fan Series. None of the cited prior
arts disclose all the features protected under the subject design.
43. In Pidilite Industries Limited vs. Astral Limited Formerly Known As
Resinova Chemie Limited: COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) No.13638/2024,
the Court held that Section 4(c) of the Designs Act only prohibits a
combination of the prior arts/known articles and not the individual parts
thereof. The relevant paras are reproduced hereunder:-
“46. The Defendant has sought to compare the caps of other products, or
only the body of the bottle, without cap, in isolation, with the Plaintiff's
container. Such a comparison cannot be made in isolation, and, in any event
such comparison with the Plaintiffs Ashvini Narwade page 26 of 47 ial-
13706-2024.doc container, which is a bottle along with a cap and seal as a
single unit, does not reveal any similarity. It is well settled that it is not
permissible to break down an article into parts/element/integers and to
compare individual parts with parts of the suit container. The article must
be viewed as a whole. Mosaicing (i.e., breaking down into pieces from
different articles and comparing them with the suit design) is not
permissible. The Defendant has sought to dissect the Plaintiff's container
into parts and has sought to compare individual elements and features of
the Plaintiff's container with other designs, patents and products, which is
not permissible. The Plaintiff's design has to be looked as a whole and
cannot be segregated, dissected into separate integers. The test of “appeal
to the eye” has to be considered for the design as a whole. This is laid
down in paragraph 37 of the decision of this Court in Cello (supra) which
reads as under:-
“37. But what really fails Mr. Tolia's cause is the observation at
page 243 of this very report at placetum 10 that the design must
be taken as a whole. In that case, the House of Lords may have
found neither novelty nor originality but I do not think it is at all
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 331/2026 Page 29 of 37
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
17:54:24
legitimate for Mr. Tolia to expand this to suggest that the
various integers in the bottle be segregated and each integer
separately tested for novelty and originality. That is not even
Cello's case. For a given bottle for, say, the manufacture of
perfumes, fragrances or specialized liquor products, it is
entirely conceivable that the bottle would take a completely
unique shape, a never-seen-before combination of shape,
configuration and ornamentation.”
47. Further, the Plaintiff's registered design is not a combination of
known designs as is sought to be alleged by the Defendant. In any Ashvini
Narwade page 27 of 47 ial-13706-2024.doc event, it is not a requirement
of the law in infringement in relation to a design that every single aspect
must be entirely newly concocted and unknown to the history of mankind.
If that were so, no new or original design would exist at all. It is a general
rule that mosaicing of prior art, i.e., combining selected features from
different prior art publications, is not permissible when assessing whether
a design is novel. Conversely, mosaicing is also no defence to a charge of
infringement of a registered design. Mosaicing contemplates taking
known integers or combinations and simply rearranging them. In this
context paragraph 28 of the judgement in Cello (supra) is relevant and
reads as under:-
“28. I must reject too Mr. Tolia's argument of mosaicing. I
believe it to be misapplied to this case. It is not a requirement of
the law in infringement or passing off in relation to a design that
every single aspect must be entirely newly concocted and
unknown to the history of mankind. If that were so, we should
never see any new or original design at all. It is a general rule
that "mosaicing" of prior art, i.e., combining selected features in
different prior art publications, is not permissible when
assessing whether an invention is new. Conversely, mosaicing is
also no defence to a charge of infringement of a registered
design. Mosaicing contemplates taking known integers or
combinations and simply re-arranging them. In a situation like
ours, it might for example apply if Cello laid claim to a very
similar bottle with a similar shape, configuration and
ornamentation but merely repositioned the ornamentation by
setting it horizontally rather than vertically and doing not much
else besides. That is not the case here.”
48. Further, the term design as defined under the Designs Act means the
design of an article capable of being made and sold separately. The phrase
“combination of known designs” as stipulated in Ashvini Narwade page
28 of 47 ial-13706-2024.doc Section 4(c) of the Designs Act only prohibits
a combination of known articles and not parts thereof. The same does not
extend to a part of known articles. Hence, even if some integers of a
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 331/2026 Page 30 of 37
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
17:54:24
design were a part of a previously known article, its use in the specified
manner to yield a novel article is not forbidden and the article taken as a
whole would constitute a new design. This is laid down in paragraph 49 of
the decision of this Court in Selvel Industries and Anr. (supra) which reads
as under:-
“49. Whirlpool was carried in appeal. The Division Bench also
rejected the argument raised on behalf of Videocon that
Whirlpool's design was merely a combination of known designs
and, therefore, lacked originality. After looking at the definitions
of article and design in the Designs Act, 2000, the Division
Bench concluded that it is the article by itself that must have its
stand-alone identity. 'Design', in this context, means the design
of a article capable of being made and sold separately. The
phrase 'combination of known designs' in the prohibitory
Section 4(c) obviously means a combination of known articles. It
is this that is prohibited; the interdiction does not extend to
parts of known articles. Therefore, even if the wave-form integer
was part of a previously known article, its use in the specified
manner to yield a novel article is not forbidden.”
[Emphasis supplied]
44. We are fortified in our view by the judgement in TTK Prestige (supra),
where in sub-para (xviii) of para 38.13, it was held that mosaicing of prior art
designs is impermissible and novelty cannot be attacked by combining
individual elements of prior designs. It was further held that the earlier design,
cited as prior publication, must be disclosed in a single prior document.
45. Thus, after an overall consideration of the principles laid down by the
afore-referred judgments as well as of the cited prior arts submitted by the
defendant and the opinion rendered thereon, as noted above, this Court is of
the prima facie opinion that the argument of the defendant that the registered
design of the plaintiff is not novel based on the prior arts cited by it, is
unsustainable.
46. Another significant aspect which was considered in TTK Prestige
(supra) was that in order to constitute piracy, a design need not necessarily be
identical to another. The features which would impart novelty to a design may
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 331/2026 Page 31 of 37
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
17:54:24
tantamount to infringement/piracy. In fact, the less significant details which
may not necessarily constitute novelty and/or originality would not imply that
the impugned design is not infringing in nature. It is trite that in the matter of
novelty, the instructed eye is to be the ultimate test and the determination has
to be on the normal ocular impression.
47. So as to not lose the effect, impact and purport of sub-para (xxv) of
para 38.13 of TTK Prestige (supra) , it is apposite to extract the same
hereunder:-
“(xxv) There is a subtle difference between the test which would apply when
examining validity of the suit design vis-à-vis prior art and infringement of
the suit design by the impugned design of the defendant. This difference
arises essentially because the validity of the suit design vis-à-vis prior art is
being examined at a point of time prior to the registration of the suit design,
whereas the aspect of infringement of the suit design by the defendant‘s
design is examined vis-à-vis the certificate of registration of the suit design,
and the features of novelty and originality which have been certified to be
existing in the suit design. Prior publication would invalidate the suit design
only if the suit design itself has been published prior in point of time.
Invalidation on the ground of want of novelty and originality, on the other
hand, does not require prior publication of the suit design itself. What it
does require, however, is the existence of a prior design which, when
applied to an article, would reveal that, except for trade variants, there is
no difference between prior art and the suit design. While examining
infringement, on the other hand, the Court is required to examine the design
and the prior art vis-à-vis, as it were. The eye with which the aspect of
infringement is examined is an instructed eye, which is aware of prior art
and of the features which impart, to the suit design, novelty and originality
vis-à-vis prior art. The comparison of the design of the defendant‘s product
with the suit design has to be made from the perspective of such an
instructed eye thus examined, if it is seen that the features which impart, to
the suit design, novelty and originality vis-à-vis prior art, and as certified in
the certificate of registration of the suit design, stand replicated in the
design of the defendant, the defendant is guilty of piracy.”
48. Having regard to the aforesaid essentiality, this Court would examine
the two rival designs. The pictographical representations are as under:-
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 331/2026 Page 32 of 37
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
17:54:24
49. This Court had requested the parties to present before it the two rival
assembled products for visual examination. On such examination, as also after
perusing the aforesaid comparison table of the two rival marks and having
regard to the essential parameters laid down in TTK Prestige (supra) , this
Court is of the prima facie opinion that an interim injunction, even post
launch, is warranted.
50. Having visually examined both the products, this Court is in alignment
with the case set up by the plaintiff. It is relevant to understand that the visual
examination has to be from the perspective of an instructed eye, which is
aware of prior art and of the features which impart, to the suit design, novelty
and originality vis-à-vis prior art, and which is capable of seeing through, to
discern whether it is common trade knowledge or a novelty so striking and
substantial as to merit registration.
51. To be fair to the defendant, the bottom canopy and the upper canopy of
the defendant’s product appear to be little distinctive from that of the plaintiff,
in that, the canopies of the defendant are more dome shaped while the canopy
of the plaintiff is slightly like a half of the hour glass. However, minor or
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 331/2026 Page 33 of 37
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
17:54:24
peripheral differences in non-essential features cannot serve as a shield where
the essential features of a design seem to be copied.
52. Other than that, essentially, the look and the general features of both
the products do not give any impression of distinction.
53. Comparing the shape and aesthetic profile of the blades of the rival
designs, it is apparent that both the products employ a variable wide type
design. The visual similarity in the overall blade design is unmistakable. With
respect to the motor end of the blade, it is observed that the curve at the motor
end is matching with the bottom cover radius in both the rival designs.
Further, this Court observes that the curve and line of the blade at tip end is
fluidic, which seems as a deliberate design choice that has been replicated by
the defendant. So far as longitudinal line of the blade is concerned, the curve
and line in the blades across the length is matching in both the rival designs.
Even the line and shape of the bottom cover, which is characterised by a
curved and fluidic form, is similar in both the fans.
54. It is relevant to also note that the defendant has, nowhere in its defense
taken in the reply to the present application, stated that the design used by it
on its product is not similar to the registered design of the plaintiff.
55. The defendant relied upon the judgments in M/s. B Chawla & Sons
(supra) and Steelbird Hi-Tech India Ltd. (supra) in support of its
contentions. However, it would be relevant to note that the said judgements
were already considered by this Court in TTK Prestige (supra) where in paras
38.11.4 and 38.6.4, the principles laid down in M/s. B Chawla & Sons
(supra) and Steelbird Hi-Tech India Ltd. (supra) respectively, have been
considered and amalgamated into the judgement in TTK Prestige (supra) .
This Court has already considered and appreciated the parameters laid down
in TTK Prestige (supra) and thus, is of the view that a separate opinion need
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 331/2026 Page 34 of 37
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
17:54:24
not be rendered. Reliance was also placed on the judgment in Jayson
Industries (supra) , particularly para 46, wherein this Court had extracted the
relevant portion of Barat Glass Tube Ltd. vs. Gopal Glass Works Ltd.: 2008
(10) SCC 657 for the purposes of understanding what would amount to
“publishing”. In the present case, the contention of the defendant that the
design of the plaintiff is already published in the prior arts has been found to
be untenable, hence, the principle in Jayson Industries (supra) to the extent
relied upon by the defendant is unmerited.
56. Ordinarily, this Court would not have ventured to grant interim
injunction against the defendant after the launch of its product, however, the
affidavits filed by the defendant alongwith the invoices etc., in the context of
the statement of the counsel for the defendant, on instructions, made and
recorded in the order dated 30.03.2026 compel the Court to protect the
interests of the plaintiff at this stage.
57. It is relevant to note that the plaintiff’s design was registered as far
back as in the year 2024. As soon as the plaintiff became aware of the
impending launch of the product of the defendant, on the claim that the design
of the defendant’s product infringes the registered design of the plaintiff, the
plaint was filed and listed on 30.03.2026 for the first time on which date, the
counsel for the defendant made a statement that the product has already been
launched on 20.03.2026 in one of the retail outlets. The defendant had filed its
affidavit recording the said statement on 31.03.2026, relevant portion of
which is extracted hereunder:-
“3. That the concerned product of the Defendant i.e. Energion Grace BLDC
fans was launched on or before 20.03.2026 across at least four states in
India namely Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Kamataka and Gujarat.
4. That some of the readily available geo-tagged images of the said
Energion Grace products of the Defendant which were taken between
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 331/2026 Page 35 of 37
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
17:54:24
20.03.2026 and 21.03.2026 at the premises of dealers of the Defendant
across different states, are being filed along with my present affidavit.”
58. Another affidavit was filed by the defendant on 02.05.2026 giving
details of dispatch of the defendant’s product ‘Grace BLDC Fans’ from the
defendant’s third party contract, manufacturing facility/factory to the
defendant's warehouse.
59. The documents filed alongwith the said affidavits of the defendant
disclose two things, (i) that the defendant’s product was manufactured and
transported from the manufacturing unit to the defendant’s warehouse on and
from 07.03.2026 onwards and (ii) the other set of documents clearly indicate
that the sale of the said product in the retail stores took place only on
06.04.2026 i.e., after the first date of hearing on 30.03.2026. During the
hearing of the present application on 06.05.2026, the aforesaid factual
position was not denied by the learned senior counsel for the defendant.
60. It is pertinent to note that it was on the basis of the statement of the
counsel for the defendant on 30.03.2026 that the product had already been
launched that no further hearing was felt necessitated for an ad-interim
injunction on that day in order to provide the defendant an opportunity to file
its reply post launch. Considering the aforesaid crucial aspect, the plaintiff
cannot be put to any prejudice considering the fact that the plaintiff had
indeed approached this Court before the actual date of launch by the
defendant. No document whatsoever has been placed by the defendant to
demonstrate an actual date of launch except for a few photographs of the
products at retail stores, which do not convey the date of launch in any
manner whatsoever.
61. Having regard to the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the defendant, their business associates, partners, directors, principal
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 331/2026 Page 36 of 37
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
17:54:24
officers, family members, servants, agents, dealers, distributors, franchisees,
agents and anyone acting for and on their behalf their proprietors, as the case
may be, and all others acting for and on behalf of the defendant are restrained
from manufacturing, marketing, selling (including on online platforms), using
the registered design bearing no.393299-001 or any other design, in any
manner including the ‘GRACE’ series of ceiling fans or any other fan(s)
series which is either identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s
‘AEON’ Fans Series.
62. Considering the fact that the defendant has already launched its product
and the same are available for sale in the retail stores, there shall be no further
sales of the infringing product of the defendant on and from the date of this
order, except those which have already been sold.
63. The defendant shall maintain its records of sale and financial
statements etc. in respect of the sales of the infringing product of the
defendant on and from 06.04.2026 till date. The said record and other details
shall be disclosed by way of an affidavit in a sealed cover within four weeks
from date.
64. Having regard to the aforesaid analysis, the present application is
disposed of in view of the above directions.
65. The aforesaid analysis and observations shall not tantamount to any
expression of the merits of the suit and are confined only to the consideration
for the adjudication of this application.
CS(COMM) 331/2026
66. List on 17.07.2026 before Court.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
(JUDGE)
MAY 14, 2026/ rl
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 331/2026 Page 37 of 37
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
17:54:24