Summary
In the case of Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v Stove Kraft Limited, the Bombay High Court refused interim injunction in a design infringement and passing off dispute involving ceiling fans. The Court found that Atomberg had compared Stove Kraft’s fan with later product models rather than with the registered design itself, and that no obvious visual similarity was seen when the proper comparison was made. The Court also held that Atomberg failed to show goodwill and distinctiveness in the particular get up necessary to support a passing off claim.
Background
Design Infringement and Passing Off Dispute
Atomberg filed a commercial IP suit against Stove Kraft before the Bombay High Court, alleging infringement of its registered design for a ceiling fan and passing off. Atomberg relied on its registered design dated 1 January 2020 in class 23 04, bearing registration number 325322 001, and claimed that Stove Kraft’s “Pigeon Fan-tastic BLDC Ceiling Fan” copied the shape, configuration, design, and aesthetic appeal of its fan.
An ex parte ad interim injunction had earlier been granted against Stove Kraft. A Court Receiver was also appointed to seize the impugned fans and related manufacturing material. After Stove Kraft appeared and filed its reply, the interim application was heard for final disposal.
Atomberg claimed novelty in the shape and configuration of its fan, including the petal-inspired blade curve, asymmetric tapering, rounded blade junction, V bend along the blade, curved body, canopy, and bottom circular plastic base. Stove Kraft denied copying and argued that Atomberg had not compared the impugned fan with the registered design, but with later Atomberg models.
Questions Before the Court
-
-
- Whether Atomberg made out a prima facie case of design infringement by comparing Stove Kraft’s fan with Atomberg’s registered design.
- Whether the alleged similarities were sufficient to satisfy the visual test for obvious imitation or piracy under design law.
- Whether Atomberg established goodwill and distinctiveness in the get-up of the suit fan to support a passing off claim.
- Whether Atomberg was entitled to an interim injunction and continuation of receiver relief.
-
Arguments Presented By the Parties
Atomberg’s arguments
-
-
- Atomberg argued that its registered design had novelty in the overall shape, configuration, blade form, curvature, body profile, canopy, and bottom base of the ceiling fan.
- It submitted that Stove Kraft’s fan had a shape, configuration, design, and aesthetic appeal identical to or a fraudulent imitation of Atomberg’s registered design.
- Atomberg relied on the visual comparison test and argued that similarity had to be judged through the eye of the purchaser.
- It also argued that Stove Kraft had applied for design registration for its own fan and was therefore estopped from denying uniqueness and protectability of the fan design.
-
Stove Kraft’s arguments
-
-
- Stove Kraft argued that Atomberg’s comparison was misleading because Atomberg compared the impugned fan with subsequent Atomberg models, not with the registered design.
- It submitted that the registered design and the impugned fan differed in blade position, canopy design, housing surface pattern, rivet quantity and position, blade edge profile, motor housing lid, blade interface, capacitor, shank profile, and floral petal pattern.
- Stove Kraft contended that Atomberg’s design lacked novelty and was merely a trade variant of existing ceiling fan designs.
- It argued that passing off required something more than similarity, and Atomberg failed to prove goodwill in the specific get-up of the registered design.
-
Court’s Analysis
The Court first focused on the comparative material placed before it. Atomberg had relied on two comparative tables in the plaint to show similarity between its registered design and Stove Kraft’s impugned fan. However, the Court found that the product comparison used by Atomberg was not a comparison between the impugned fan and the ceiling fan for which Atomberg had actually obtained design registration. To show similarity, Atomberg had compared Stove Kraft’s fan with other models launched by it.
This finding became important because a design infringement action must proceed on the registered design. The right claimed by the plaintiff flows from that registration, and therefore the comparison must be between the registered design and the allegedly infringing product. Atomberg could not claim registration for one model and then rely on similarities with later product variants to prove infringement. The Court therefore found the comparison in the plaint to be prima facie flawed.
The Court then considered whether any unique or novel feature was visible in the suit fan. It stated that every ceiling fan would naturally have basic features such as blades, shank, canopy, and motor housing lid. These ordinary parts form the basic structure of a ceiling fan, and their presence by itself cannot establish novelty. What may qualify for design protection is a unique feature, pattern, configuration, or ornamental appearance that makes the design stand apart from usual ceiling fans.
Applying the settled visual test, the Court compared the rival designs as a whole. The differences between the blade design, motor housing lid, shank profile, rivet quantity, and canopy were found to be clearly visible. The unique features claimed by Atomberg, including the curved blade and the “Z” shaped shank design, were not seen in Stove Kraft’s fan. On this comparison, the impugned fan was found to be substantially different from Atomberg’s registered design.
The Court also noted that the second comparative table in the plaint relied on pictures of Atomberg’s models and not the registered design itself. Since Atomberg had admittedly introduced various models, the Court found that the table appeared to have been prepared to show alleged similarities by comparing the impugned fan with those models rather than with the registered design. This weakened Atomberg’s infringement case at the interim stage.
On passing off, the Court held that Atomberg had not made out a prima facie case of goodwill and distinctiveness in the particular get-up of the suit fan. The Chartered Accountant’s certificate relied upon by Atomberg covered six models or brands and was not confined to the suit fan. Since passing off based on product shape or get-up requires something more than mere similarity, Atomberg failed to satisfy that requirement.
For these reasons, the Court held that Atomberg had not established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss. The interim application was dismissed, the Court Receiver was discharged, and Stove Kraft’s seized goods were directed to be released.
Findings
-
-
- The Court held that Atomberg failed to make out a prima facie case of design infringement.
- The Court found that Atomberg’s comparison was flawed because it relied on later models rather than the registered design.
- The Court held that the impugned fan was substantially different from the registered design when judged visually as a whole.
- The Court held that Atomberg failed to establish goodwill and distinctiveness in the particular get-up necessary for passing off.
- The Court dismissed the interim application.
- The Court Receiver appointed earlier was discharged, and Stove Kraft’s seized goods were directed to be released.
-
Relevant Paras
Paragraph 31
“From the table incorporated in the affidavit-in-reply showing the comparison of the two tables incorporated in the plaint, prima facie, it is seen that the product versus product comparison made by the plaintiff in the plaint is not between the plaintiff’s ceiling fan, for which it has actually obtained the design registration. To show similarity, the plaintiff has compared the defendant’s fan with the other models launched by the plaintiff.”
Paragraph 32
“Prima facie, no unique or novel feature is seen in the suit fan that can be said to be obviously different from that of a usual ceiling fan. For example, any ceiling fan will have basic features, such as blades, a shank, a canopy, or even a motor housing lid. Therefore, the basic structure of any ceiling fan is bound to be the same.”
Paragraph 33
“On comparison, the differences between the blade design, motor housing lid, shank profile, rivet quantity, and canopy are clearly visible. In view of the well-settled legal principles, the test applied to determine whether there is any obvious imitation or piracy of a registered design requires the similarity or difference to be judged through the eye alone.”
Paragraph 34
“The different shape of the blade with a curve and the ‘Z’ shape shank design of the suit fan is not seen in the impugned fan. Even otherwise, there are differences between the image of the suit fan and the impugned fan.”
Paragraph 35
“The plaintiff has also not made out a prima facie case to establish goodwill and distinctiveness in a particular getup, which would show something more than mere similarity, providing a cause of action on the aspect of passing off.”
Paragraphs 36 to 38
“The plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case, a balance of convenience and irreparable loss that may be suffered in the absence of interim relief.
The interim application is therefore dismissed.
The Court Receiver appointed vide Order dated 24 th July 2025 stands discharged. The defendant’s goods seized by the Court Receiver shall be released forthwith.”
Case Citation: Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v Stove Kraft Limited, Bombay High Court, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, Interim Application No. 88 of 2026 in Commercial IP Suit No. 710 of 2025, decided on 17 April 2026, available on Indian Kanoon, visited on 12 May 2026.
Disclaimer
This case blog is based on the author’s understanding of the judgment. Understandings and opinions of others may differ. An AI application was used to generate parts of this case blog based on user inputs and prompts.