A Division Bench of the of Judicature at Bombay has restored an restraining from manufacturing and selling its “Pigeon fan-tastic” ceiling fan, determining that its design constitutes an imitation of the distinct aesthetic appearance associated with ’s “Renesa Alpha” fan. The ruling reverses a decision by a Single Judge, issued on , which had originally dismissed Atomberg’s application for interim relief and discharged a court-appointed receiver.
The court’s decision provides immediate relief to Atomberg, which holds registration number 325322-001 in Class 23-04 for its ceiling fan design. In its judgment, the Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande reinforced the primacy of visual assessment in cases, confirming that the court must evaluate whether a product’s design serves as an obvious or fraudulent imitation of a registered work. By restoring the from , the has effectively halted Stove Kraft’s manufacturing and commercial activities regarding the disputed model and re-authorized the court-appointed receiver to maintain possession and control over the impugned inventory.
Protecting Aesthetic Uniqueness in Industrial Design
Atomberg had initiated the suit alleging that Stove Kraft’s “Pigeon fan-tastic BLDC” ceiling fan, introduced in , deliberately mimicked the shape and configuration of the Atomberg Renesa Alpha, which has been in commercial use since . The company asserted that its novelty resided not in any single functional component, but in the combination of its features: petal-inspired curved blades, asymmetric tapering, a V-bend profile, and a balanced, sleek silhouette.
During the appellate proceedings, the court engaged in a comparative analysis of the rival products. The Division Bench emphasized that the ""—viewing the designs as a whole—was the definitive standard for assessing under . Rejecting the respondent’s attempt to focus on minor, isolated differences, such as the number of rivets or the specific profile of the shank, the court stressed that design law is intended to protect the visual impact a product creates on a potential purchaser.
As the Bench observed, “The primary test to determine novelty, originality and infringement under the , is the 'eye' test to evaluate whether two designs are substantially identical or if an imitation has occurred through visual comparison, then the technical analysis or breaking it down into a minute or isolated differences, is not permissible.” The judges noted that the "Z-shaped" shaft feature, highlighted by the respondent as a point of distinction, was never claimed as a unique component in the original registration and was largely hidden from the ordinary consumer’s view once the fan was mounted.
Evaluating Consumer Perception and Market Confusion
A significant portion of the ’s reasoning addressed the nature of the consumer experience. The court held that the aesthetic value of a consumer-grade appliance like a ceiling fan is intended to appeal to the visual senses, moving beyond mere mechanical function. The Bench noted, “The design seeks to appeal to the heart rather than to the head, to use in common parlance. Once the consumer likes such a design, then the choice is made on aesthetic values rather than solely on functionality.”
The court further dismissed the contention that
"a fan is just a fan,"
noting that Atomberg had invested significant time and resources in developing a product that stood out for its appearance. Through submitted documentation, including chartered accountant certificates and annual sales data, Atomberg demonstrated that its Renesa Alpha design had garnered
and
. Given that both companies operated within overlapping trade channels and targeted the same demographic, the court concluded that the similarity in design could easily lead an average consumer to associate the respondent's fan with the appellant's, leading to market confusion.
Addressing the challenge of proving , the court maintained that the likelihood of confusion is sufficient in a action. The Bench affirmed that where a design feature has been "slavishly copied" from a registered proprietor, it inevitably erodes the original creator's market advantage. Regarding the defense of functionality, the court reiterated that a design featuring both functional and aesthetic attributes is eligible for protection, and that the existence of other possible designs for ceiling fans rendered the respondent’s claim of functional necessity invalid.
Adjudicating and Visual Identity
The court’s judgment underscores the judicial rejection of ""—a practice of combining minor, pre-existing design elements to challenge the novelty of a registered design. The Bench found that Stove Kraft had failed to provide any credible evidence of that matched the combination of features present in the Atomberg design. By scrutinizing the rival products side-by-side, the court found that the essence of the design—the graceful flow and petal-like blade configuration—was undeniably reflected in the impugned product. As the court famously noted in its assessment of competing products, “No 'expert' can add much more than that which is obvious to the 'naked eye.'”
The ruling provides a clear path forward for the ongoing commercial suit, during which Atomberg continues to pursue claims for damages amounting to ₹110 crore and a full account of the profits earned by the respondent. By reinstating the court receiver and granting the temporary injunction, the has reinforced the protective scope of the , ensuring that companies cannot bypass legal protections through superficial modifications to a product’s appearance. The matter remains pending for final disposal, but for the interim, the decision bars Stove Kraft from further distribution or advertisement of the model in question.
aesthetic appeal - design piracy
