Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Alok Aradhe, M.S.Karnik
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.S.KARNIK, J.
1. The appellant - Atomberg Technologies Private Limited (Atomberg for short) is the original plaintiff. Atomberg is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 05/06/2023 dismissing the interim application (‘IA’, short) in Commercial IP Suit filed by Atomberg thereby refusing to grant interim injunction against the respondent (Luker Electric for short) original defendant.
2. The facts pleaded in the plaint and the application for interim reliefs in the context of its registered design of ceiling fan ‘Atomberg Renesa Ceiling Fan’ need to be briefly stated.
3. The design in respect of the suit fan was registered on 08.09.2018. Atomberg has come out with a case that it was served with caveats filed by the Luker Electric before this Court and District Court at Ernakulam in Kerala, sometime in the last week of September 2022, when it was realised that Luker Electric had obtained registration for two ceiling fans : Size Zero Fan 1 and Size Zero Fan 2. It is Atomberg’s case that the said registration was obtained on 21.03.2022 by Luker Electric in a fraudulent manner as the impugned designs and ceiling fans of Luker Electric infring
An interim injunction for design infringement requires clear demonstrable novelty; mere similarity is insufficient, emphasizing the criteria of prior publication and trade variant in assessing design....
The court ruled that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case of design infringement, necessitating the maintenance of the interim injunction against the defendants based on failure to prove pri....
A design must be new and original to qualify for protection under the Designs Act, and mere modifications of existing designs do not constitute infringement.
A registered design cannot simultaneously be claimed as a trademark, and prior publication invalidates its registration under the Designs Act.
Temporary injunction denied as plaintiffs failed to establish prima facie case due to admitted similarities in designs and functionality claims, violating provisions of the Designs Act.
The protection of registered design depends on aesthetic appeal, and if the design possesses significant artistic value, it can be safeguarded against piracy despite functional elements.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
