Atomberg Technologies Pvt. Ltd. recently escalated its legal battle against Luker Electric Technologies Pvt. Ltd. to the Division Bench (DB, Two Judge Bench) of the Bombay High Court, following the refusal of a Single Judge to grant an interim injunction in a suit alleging design infringement and passing off. The case revolves around Atomberg's claim over the design of its "Renesa" ceiling fan and the competing products introduced by Luker.
Atomberg's Contentions
- Atomberg submitted that it began producing ceiling fans in 2015 and launched online sales in 2016, later entering the retail market nationwide by 2018.
- With a strong client base and multiple awards, Atomberg claimed substantial goodwill, particularly for its house marks "Atomberg" and "Gorilla," although the latter was phased out over time.
- The company registered the design of the Atomberg Renesa Ceiling Fan in September 2018. Atomberg argued that the fan's unique design and aesthetic appeal had earned it widespread popularity.
- Upon learning that Luker had obtained registration for two ceiling fan models—Size Zero Fan 1 and Size Zero Fan 2, of which only the former had been launched—Atomberg alleged that Luker's adoption, registration, and use of these designs amounted to design infringement and passing off.
Luker's Counter arguments
- Luker, a well-established player in the ceiling fan industry, countered by asserting that Atomberg had suppressed material facts.
- They argued that Atomberg's fan design was already in the public domain before its registration.
- Citing delivery challans, invoices, and sales of similar designs marketed under the "Gorilla" brand, Luker claimed that Atomberg's design lacked novelty and consisted mainly of functional features, making it ineligible for protection under the Designs Act.
- Luker also contended that Atomberg had not demonstrated a passing off, as legal precedent requires more than superficial resemblance.
Single Judge's Decision
After evaluating the pleadings and submissions, the Single Judge refused Atomberg's interim injunction application, prompting the appeal to the Division Bench.
Appeal Contentions
- Atomberg argued that the Single Judge erred by relying on incorrect documents and misinterpreting prior publication.
- They maintained that the fans cited by Luker differed significantly from the Atomberg Renesa, making the design novel.
- Atomberg further contended that prior use of the house marks "Atomberg" and "Gorilla" did not constitute prior publication of the fan design.
Luker countered that Atomberg's design was merely a trade variant and had already been published or sold before registration.
Division Bench Findings
- The Division Bench observed that appellate courts generally do not interfere with trial court findings unless they are perverse, arbitrary, unsupported by evidence, or involve a misapplication of law. The Court noted that Atomberg's claims of novelty were undermined by prima facie evidence, including social media posts, delivery challans, invoices, and Atomberg's own catalogues, indicating prior sale and publication.
- The Bench emphasized that under the Designs Act, a design is not protectable if it is not new or original, or if it has already been published. The Single Judge had rightly found that Atomberg's registered design was almost identical to previously available designs, with only minor differences. Accordingly, the DB held that no grounds existed to interfere with the refusal of the injunction.
Comment
In conclusion, the Division Bench reaffirmed the principle that appellate interference is limited and found no error in the Single Judge's decision. Atomberg's claim was weakened by evidence of prior publication and lack of novelty, rendering the request for interim relief unsustainable at this stage.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
