Travel Blue Products India Pvt. Ltd. v. Miniso Life Style Pvt. Ltd.
Introduction
The case of Travel Blue Products India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Miniso Life Style Pvt. Ltd. presents a detailed exploration of the legal thresholds that govern protection under the Designs Act, 2000 and the tort of passing off. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had engaged in piracy of a registered design and passed off their travel neck pillows as those of the plaintiffs.
The key issue was whether the plaintiffs’ aesthetic design qualified for statutory protection and whether the defendants’ product was an obvious imitation causing consumer confusion.
Factual Background
Travel Blue Limited, a UK-based company, created the “Tranquility Neck Pillow.” Its Indian subsidiary marketed and sold the product across online and offline platforms. Designed in 2015, the pillow was registered in India on 24 July 2017 (Registration No. 281315) and protected until 2030. The design is also registered in the EU, US, China, and Australia.
The plaintiffs reported over ₹70 lakhs in sales for FY 2024–2025 and claimed the product gained wide recognition and customer trust.
The defendants were accused of selling similar-looking neck pillows using identical colors (gray, blue, purple, pink), amounting to design piracy and passing off.
Procedural Background
The plaintiffs approached the Bombay High Court seeking interim relief, which was granted on 24 September 2024. Defendants responded with an affidavit challenging the claim’s maintainability. Both sides agreed to treat the interim application as final. The final judgment was delivered on 31 July 2025.
Core Dispute
The primary questions were:
- Did the defendants infringe on the plaintiffs’ registered design under Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000?
- Was the design entitled to protection, or was it disqualified for being functional or lacking novelty?
- Did the defendants commit passing off?
- Was there suppression of material facts by the plaintiffs?
Discussion on Judgments
Plaintiffs relied on precedents like:
- Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. Videocon Industries Ltd.
- Videocon v. Whirlpool
- Sirona Hygiene Pvt. Ltd. v. Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd.
- Faber-Castell v. Pikpen Pvt. Ltd.
- Parle v. DS Innovative and Frito-Lay v. Balaji Wafers
- Asian Rubber v. Jasco Rubbers
These cases emphasized that visual appeal and distinctiveness are critical for design protection and that even functional designs can be protected if they possess aesthetic value.
The defendants cited:
- Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd.
- Smithkline Beecham Plc v. Hindustan Lever Ltd.
- ITC Ltd. v. Controller of Patents and Designs
- Indiana Gratings v. Anand Udyog
- Atomberg Technologies v. Luker Electric
- Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India
These decisions asserted that functional features should not qualify for design protection.
Reasoning and Analysis
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh clarified that under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, a design must appeal to the eye and not be a mere mechanical device. The Court found the plaintiffs’ product aesthetically appealing despite some functional elements.
The Court rejected the argument that the design lacked novelty, noting that defendants failed to prove prior publication or similar designs. The “only option” test remained valid, and the design’s visual appeal made it registrable.
On passing off, the Court found that the plaintiffs had established goodwill and customer recognition since 2015. The resemblance was strong enough to cause consumer confusion, especially as the products were displayed unpackaged.
Final Decision
The Court granted interim relief, restraining the defendants from manufacturing or advertising the impugned products. The Court held that the plaintiffs had a strong prima facie case of design infringement and passing off. The balance of convenience favored the plaintiffs.
Law Settled in This Case
The judgment reaffirms that:
- A design with both functional and aesthetic elements can be protected if it has eye appeal.
- The “only option” test still applies even after Cryogas.
- Foreign registrations without prior publication proof can’t cancel Indian design rights.
- Visual similarity alone may constitute passing off if it misleads consumers.
Case Details
- Case Title: Travel Blue Products India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Miniso Life Style Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
- Date of Order: 31st July, 2025
- Case Number: Interim Application (L) No. 28407 of 2024 in Commercial IPR Suit (L) No. 28275 of 2024
- Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:12294
- Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay
- Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor – Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539
