Bombay HC Restores Interim Ban On Stove Kraft’s Pigeon Fan, Saying Its Petal-Blade Look Prima Facie Copies Atomberg’s Registered Design

Atomberg claimed that Stove Kraft’s “Pigeon fan-tastic BLDC Ceiling fan” copied the shape and configuration of its ceiling fan design, registered on 1 January 2020 as Design No. 325322-001, and also passed off as Atomberg’s product.

Atomberg sought interim injunctions and appointment of a Court Receiver.

The Single Judge discharged the Receiver and dismissed the application, finding no prima facie case of design infringement or passing off.

Atomberg appealed.

The Designs Act, 2000 defines “design” by reference to features of shape, configuration, pattern or ornament that appeal to and are judged solely by the eye; “original” includes a design old in itself but new in its application (Sections 2(d) and 2(g)).

Sections 4 and 19 address registrability and cancellation, while Section 11 confers copyright in a registered design and Section 22 provides a remedy against piracy by fraudulent or obvious imitation, subject to cancellation grounds being available as a defence.

For infringement, the court must assess the rival articles as a whole, focusing on the essential features and overall visual impression, rather than requiring exact duplication or dissecting minor differences; for a marketed product, the comparison is made through the eye of the purchaser.

The Court relied on Whirlpool India Ltd. v. Videocon Industries Ltd., Kemp & Co. v. Prima Plastics Ltd. and Cello Household Products v. Modware India for these principles.

It also applied the appellate restraint in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd., permitting interference where the trial court ignored settled principles or applied the wrong test.

For passing off, the relevant inquiry was likelihood of deception; proof of actual confusion was unnecessary.

The Court compared the fans physically and considered their overall appearance from the perspective of an ordinary purchaser.

It found that the petal-like blades, their tapering and curvature, and the combined shape and configuration created the distinctive visual appeal of Atomberg’s design; the differences in rivets, canopy and shank were minor when the products were viewed as a whole.

The “Z” shaft was not claimed as a novel feature in the registration and was not a material distinction in the fan as ordinarily viewed.

The Court also rejected the contention that comparison was limited to the registered Renesa Alpha model: Atomberg’s case was that the registered design was applied across its variants, which retained the essential design features.

In the absence of prior-art material contradicting Atomberg’s claimed combination and in light of its sales and promotional evidence, the Court found a prima facie case of design piracy and passing off.

The Single Judge had instead dissected the designs and focused on isolated differences, thereby applying the wrong test; appellate interference was therefore justified.

The Court held, prima facie, that Stove Kraft’s fan substantially imitated Atomberg’s registered design and was likely to pass off as Atomberg’s product.

Interim Application No. 88 of 2026 was allowed in terms of its injunction prayers, restraining Stove Kraft and persons claiming through it from dealing in the impugned or deceptively similar fans pending disposal of the suit; the ad-interim order appointing the Court Receiver was restored.