Atomberg’s Petal-Blade Fan Design Gets Interim Protection As Bombay HC Restrains Stove Kraft’s Similar Pigeon Fan-Tastic

Atomberg sued Stove Kraft alleging piracy of its registered ceiling-fan design, Registration No. 325322-001, and passing off.

It sought interim injunctions and appointment of a Court Receiver.

The Single Judge dismissed the interim application on 17 April 2026, finding no prima facie case, and discharged the Receiver.

On appeal, the Bombay High Court compared the registered design and the competing fans, including their relevant variants.

1. Whether Stove Kraft’s fan was a fraudulent or obvious imitation of Atomberg’s registered design, so as to amount to piracy under Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000.

2. Whether Atomberg established a prima facie case of passing off and was entitled to interim relief.

3. Whether the Single Judge’s refusal of interim relief warranted appellate interference.

The Court applied Sections 2(d) and 2(g) of the Designs Act, 2000, defining “design” and “original”; Section 4, which excludes designs that are not new or original or are not significantly distinguishable from known designs; Section 11, which confers copyright in a registered design; and Sections 19 and 22, which provide grounds to challenge registration and a remedy for piracy, respectively.

For infringement, it applied the visual-comparison test: the rival products are assessed as a whole, through the eye of the purchaser, to determine whether the essential visual features of the registered design have been substantially copied; minor differences do not necessarily avoid infringement.

It relied on Whirlpool India Ltd. v. Videocon Industries Ltd., Kemp & Co. v. Prima Plastics Ltd. and Cello Household Products v. Modware India on overall visual impression and essential features.

The Court distinguished the “instructed eye” test, treating it as relevant principally to novelty and originality against prior art, rather than the infringement inquiry in this case.

For appellate review of an interlocutory injunction, it applied Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd., permitting interference where the Single Judge ignored settled principles or applied an incorrect test.

Passing off required a likelihood of confusion arising from the defendant’s representation and use of a get-up associated with the plaintiff; proof of actual confusion was unnecessary.

The Court found that Atomberg claimed novelty in the combined shape and configuration of the fan, particularly its petal-shaped, tapered blades and overall appearance—not in the “Z”-shaped shaft, which was not claimed as a novel design feature and was not readily visible when the fan was installed.

Comparing the products as a whole, the Court considered their blade shape, configuration and overall aesthetic appearance substantially similar; differences such as rivet count and minor component variations did not displace that impression.

It also noted that Atomberg’s design was registered and that Stove Kraft had produced no prior-art example establishing that the claimed combination was already known.

Atomberg’s sales and other evidence supported goodwill in the fan’s distinctive appearance, while the similarity and overlapping sales channels supported a likelihood of consumer confusion.

The Single Judge had focused on isolated differences and compared the products using an incorrect approach; that error justified appellate interference under Wander.

It allowed Interim Application No. 88 of 2026 on the relevant prayer clauses, restraining Stove Kraft and those acting through it from dealing in the impugned fan or a fan bearing an identical or deceptively similar design pending disposal of the suit.

The earlier ad-interim order appointing the Court Receiver was restored.