CS(COMM) 421/2023, I.A. 11325/2023, I.A. 17900/2023 & I.A. 18703/2023

The plaintiff alleged piracy of their three registered designs pertaining to ceiling fans – the ENTICER, BIANCA ART and BIANCA ART – SANGANER models, called 2016, 2021 and 2022 suit designs, respectively.

Earlier, the Court vide order dated 2 June 2023, granted ad interim relief, by directing the defendant not to deal with the impugned fans which was identical or deceptively similar to the 2016, 2021 and 2022 designs registered in the plaintiff’s favour.

In the present order dated 6^th December 2023, the Court held that the interim injunction granted vide the interim order dated 2 June 2023 is maintained with regard to plaintiff’s 2016 suit design only.

The key observations that emerge from the order are:

2016 Suit Design

Novelty was certified as residing in its shape and configuration.

• When examining the aspect of design piracy from the point of view of visual appeal, the Court does not proceed with a foot rule in hand, to measure the length and breadth of the various features of the suit design vis-à-vis the alleged infringing design of the defendant.

• The overall impression of the design of the defendant’s product, vis-à-vis the suit design, is what matters. Mild differences in the lengths, widths, thickness, etc of the defendant’s ELANZA range of fans, vis-à-vis the suit design are, therefore, of no relevance whatsoever.

• It is the overall shape and configuration which matters. The Court is not supposed to fragment the shape or configuration of the suit design into minor individual elements and start measuring lengths and breadths in order to arrive at a finding regarding imitation/similarity.

• The defendant has named the colours of its range of fans using the same expressions which are used by the plaintiff. This indicates an intent, by the defendant, to imitate the plaintiff’s range of fans.  The Court found merit in this argument.

• Thus, injunction maintained.

2021 Suit Design

• The plaint could not have bracketed its 2021 and 2021 suit design of fans into one group in order to allege deceptive similarity of piracy. While novelty and originality was certified as residing in the 2021 suit design in its shape, configuration and surface pattern; novelty was certified as residing in the 2022 suit design only in the surface pattern. Therefore, the plaintiff could not make out a combined case of design piracy, by the defendant’s fan, of both the 2021 and 2022 suit designs.

• None of the three features, which according to the plaintiff itself constitute the USP of its 2021 as well as its 2022 suit designs, are to be found in the defendant’s range of fans.

• Thus, interim injunction vacated.

2022 suit design

• This design possesses novelty and originality only in respect of the surface pattern.

• When one compares the two concerned surface patterns, they are very different. In fact, the defendant’s surface pattern is not even floral in nature but is an arrangement of leaves. On visual appeal, different designs,

• Thus, interim injunction vacated.