Failed To Make Out Strong Prima Facie Case About Novelty, Originality Of Registered Design: Bombay HC Refuses Interim Relief To Ceiling Fan Manufacturers

A bench of Justice Manish Pitale while dismissing the appeal for interim injunction observed, “…this Court finds that the plaintiff has not been able to make out that ‘something more’, as required under law, to successfully claim interim reliefs against the defendants, even on the aspect of passing off”.

“The difference, if at all, is slight and trivial and therefore, the plaintiff has failed to make out a strong prima facie case about novelty and originality of its registered design. In that sense, the defendant is justified in claiming that the plaintiff cannot rely upon a mere trade variant to seek orders of interim injunction against third parties”, the bench further noted.

Senior Advocate Virag Tulzapurkar and Legasis Partners appeared for the plaintiff and Senior Advocate Ravi Kadam and Naik Naik & Co. appeared for the defendant.

The plaintiff claimed that they started their production of ceiling fans in the year 2015, and then the online sale from the year 2016 and in the year 2018, entered the retail market all over India.

They claimed to have used two house-marks Atomberg and Gorilla, further stating that with passage of time, the plaintiff gave up the use of its house-mark Gorilla.

It was further stipulated that for the Atomberg Renesa Ceiling Fan registration was secured under the Designs Act, 2000 on September 8, 2018

The defendant, however, vehemently opposed the grant of interim relief by stating that it is not a fly-by-night operator and that instead, it is a well-established company in the ceiling fans market and have designed the two fans Size Zero Fan 1 and Size Zero Fan 2 after extensive research and development.

They further alleged that the plaintiff suppressed material facts, particularly the fact that the design of the plaintiff, in question, was already published in the public domain by the plaintiff itself.

The plaintiff contended that the aesthetics of its design that the “look and feel” as also “appeal to the eye” is such that a case for grant of interim reliefs is made out.

However, the defendants opposed it by urging that the highlighted features are nothing but aspects of functionality.

The bench after considering the facts, material placed and the tables indicating the difference in their respective fan designs, ruled in favour of the defendant and observed,

“At this stage, it would also be relevant to refer to the table of comparison between the rival designs, given by the defendant alongwith its reply affidavit. A perusal of the same shows that on each aspect of the matter, including the canopy, lid, rod, packaging of the boxes containing the rival products and the remote associated with the rival products, prima facie there are differences in the products. Even if the rival products are to be compared as a whole, when the plaintiff claims exclusive proprietary rights in the design, it has failed to make out a prima facie case in its favour in view of the design of the plaintiff being published and being in the public domain prior to the date of registration of its design”.

Cause Title: Atomberg Technologies Private v. Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited [Neutral Citation No. 2023:BHC-OS:4331