JUDGMENT :

Gauri Godse, J.

1. The suit is filed for damages and an injunction, alleging infringement of the plaintiff's registered design dated 1^st January 2020 in class 23-04 bearing registration no. 325322-001 for ceiling fans (“suit fan”) and passing off its products/goods/fans. The interim application seeks a temporary injunction and the appointment of a court receiver. This Court vide Order dated 24^th July 2025, granted exparte ad interim relief restraining the defendant from manufacturing, using, selling, exhibiting or advertising the impugned fan which imitates or resembles the suit fan. This Court appointed the Court Receiver to conduct a search, with directions to seize and take possession, custody, and control of the impugned fans, including dyes, moulds, and other material used to manufacture them.

2. After service of notice, the defendant has appeared and filed an affidavit-in-reply. Hence, the interim application was taken up for hearing and final disposal.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:

3. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the comparative table of photographs showing the registered design and the impugned fan. He submitted that the novelty in the plaintiff’s registered design lies in the shape and configuration, and in the blade’s unique petal-inspired curve. The surface flows smoothly, with continuous curvature from root to tip, and each blade features asymmetric tapering. The blade in the suit fan tapers at the edge, with a rounded junction that creates a smooth transition. The blades are uniquely shaped, with a subtle V-bend along their length, and the body is curved, narrowing at the top and gradually widening towards the bottom, creating a sleek, balanced silhouette. The canopies of the suit fan have a slanted top edge that matches the fan's diameter for a smooth, continuous look, and the fan's bottom circular plastic base features a cut-away edge that creates a dip, helping reduce visual bulk. The aesthetic look and design, along with the said features, of the suit fan have never been combined to create any other fan. It is submitted that the plaintiff was the first to introduce the unique features, and since the introduction of the suit fan, the plaintiff has been selling the same in different colours.

4. It is submitted that since November 2020, the plaintiff has openly, continuously and extensively sold the suit fan after applying for registration on 1^st January 2020. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff relied on the photographs, invoices and the Chartered Accountant's certificate. He relied upon the averments in paragraph 21 of the plaint regarding the plaintiff's knowledge of the defendant's fan having a shape configuration, design, and aesthetic appeal identical to the plaintiff’s design, having a fraudulent imitation of the shape configuration and design of the plaintiff's registered design.

5. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the definitions of “article” under Section 2(a), “design” under Section 2 (d) and “original” under Section 2(g) of the Designs Act. He submitted that a design would mean the features of the shape, configuration, and pattern, which, in the finished article, appeal to and are judged solely by the eye, and that an original design would mean a design originating from the author of such design. He also relied upon Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 and 31 of the Designs Act to point out the procedure followed for registration of a design, publication of particulars of the registered design, powers of the Controller and rectification of the register. He also pointed out that the grounds for the cancellation of designs under Section 19 can be raised as a defence under Section 22 (3) of the Designs Act.

6. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the decision of this Court in Whirlpool of India Ltd. vs. Videocon Industries Ltd., 2015(1) Bom C R 137 to point out the well-settled legal principles for the test to be applied in deciding what