Summary
The Bombay High Court dismissed Atomberg's appeal against the denial of an interim injunction in a design infringement case against Luker. The court ruled that Atomberg’s fan design lacked novelty due to prior publication and was merely a trade variant.
On July 25, 2025, the Bombay High Court dismissed an appeal by Atomberg Technologies Private Limited against an order of the Single Judge refusing an interim injunction in a suit for design infringement and passing off. The court upheld the finding that Atomberg’s registered design for its Renesa ceiling fan lacked novelty due to prior publication and was a trade variant, reiterating the principle that registration value is diluted if prior disclosure is evident. This denied relief against Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited’s allegedly infringing fans.
Background
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited (Atomberg), known for their energy-efficient ceiling fans, developed the Atomberg Renesa Ceiling Fan, securing design registration no. 306994 in India under Class 23-04 on September 8, 2018. The design was created by Atomberg’s directors, who assigned rights to the company on February 15, 2021. Atomberg claimed unique aesthetic features, including a streamlined canopy, motor cover with curved edges, and blade design, contributing to its popularity with sales turnover of Rs. 103.64 crores in 2021-2022. The fan was marketed under house marks Atomberg and Gorilla, with Atomberg ceasing use of Gorilla over time.
In March 2022, Atomberg discovered that Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited (Luker), an established player in the ceiling fan market with sales of Rs. 299.42 crores in 2021-2022, had obtained design registrations for its Size Zero Fan 1 and Size Zero Fan 2. Atomberg alleged that these designs fraudulently imitated its registered design, with Size Zero Fan 1 already in the market and Size Zero Fan 2 impending. Atomberg filed a commercial suit in 2023 seeking injunctions for infringement under the Designs Act 2000, and passing off, along with an interim application. The Single Judge dismissed the interim application, leading to Atomberg’s appeal.
Issues before the Court
-
-
- Whether Atomberg’s registered design for the Renesa ceiling fan was novel and original, or invalidated by prior publication under Sections 4(b) and 19(b) of the Designs Act, 2000.
- Whether the design constituted a trade variant not significantly distinguishable from known designs, prohibiting registration under Section 4(c).
- Whether Atomberg suppressed material facts regarding prior disclosure of similar fans, affecting the entitlement to interim relief.
- Whether a prima facie case of design infringement and passing off was established to warrant an interim injunction.
-
Atomberg’s Arguments
Atomberg contended that its Renesa ceiling fan design featured novel aesthetic elements such as a dome-shaped canopy with a smooth curve, a motor cover with a seamless finish, and blades with a unique upsweep, creating a distinctive visual appeal not previously combined in any fan. It argued that Luker’s Size Zero Fans slavishly copied these features. Atomberg emphasized its continuous use since 2018, goodwill evidenced by awards and high-profile clients, and vigilance in protecting rights. It denied prior publication, asserting that social media posts and documents from August 2018 depicted a different fan, Renesa+, with distinct features like a visible LED indicator and a different canopy shape. Atomberg produced these fans physically before the court to demonstrate the differences.
Atomberg claimed that Luker’s 2022 registrations were fraudulent and that the suppression allegations raised by Luker were unfounded, as the plaint had disclosed the evolution from Gorilla branding. On passing off, Atomberg argued that Luker’s fans were deceptively similar in shape, thereby misleading consumers.
Luker’s Submissions
Luker countered that it was a reputable company with significant investment in research. The fans designed by the company were a result of independent development. Luker challenged the validity of Atomberg’s registration, arguing that the registration should not have been granted in view of prior publication of the designs through Atomberg’s own August 2018 social media posts, delivery challans, and invoices, for “Gorilla Renesa” fans.
Luker claimed that these indicated public disclosure before September 8, 2018, thereby contravening Sections 4(b) and 19(b) of the Designs Act. It further argued that the design lacked novelty as a mere trade variant of the existing Renesa range fans, with features like curved edges being functional and not significantly distinguishable under Section 4(c).
Luker also submitted a comparison table showing differences between the two products such as Luker’s matte finish and distinct blade curvature.
On passing off, Luker submitted that mere shape similarity was insufficient without “something more” like deceptive labeling. Luker further argued that Atomberg suppressed prior sales documents, thereby warranting the denial of equitable relief.
Court’s Observations
The Court observed that Atomberg’s design registration was prima facie diluted by evidence of prior publication, including social media posts and invoices from 2018 depicting similar fans under the Gorilla Renesa name, which Atomberg itself described as interchangeable with the registered design.
The court noted that Atomberg’s failure to disclose these materials in the plaint amounted to suppression, impacting discretion for interim relief. The court also rejected explanations in the rejoinder that Gorilla was merely a house mark, finding them unpersuasive at the prima facie stage.
-
-
- On novelty, the court found that the design was a trade variant, with differences from prior fans like Renesa+ being trivial, such as minor canopy variations, and not constituting significant distinguishability under Section 4(c) of the Designs Act.
- Relying on precedents like Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. Videocon Industries Ltd. (2014 SCC OnLine Bom 565), it emphasized that registration is invalid if not new or original, or if disclosed publicly beforehand, as per Sections 4, 19, and 22.
- For passing off, the court held that Atomberg failed to demonstrate “something more” beyond shape similarity.
-
Conclusion
The Court dismissed the appeal and the interim application, refusing to grant an injunction against Luker for manufacturing, selling, or dealing in its Size Zero Fans.
Citation: Atomberg Techs. Pvt. Ltd. v. Luker Elec. Techs. Pvt. Ltd., (2025) BHC-OS-11853-DB (Bom. High Ct. July 25, 2025). Available on https://indiankanoon.org/doc/186491468/