Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v. Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited
Case Number: COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) NO. 16459 OF 2023
Date of Order: 7 June 2025
Neutral Citation: 2025-BHC-OS-1183
Court: High Court of Bombay
Judges: Hon’ble Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Karnik
Overview
The case of Atomberg Technologies Private Limited v. Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited is a pivotal judicial examination of design infringement and passing off under the Indian Designs Act, 2000. Heard before the High Court of Bombay, this commercial appeal addresses the refusal of an interim injunction sought by Atomberg to restrain Luker Electric from manufacturing and selling ceiling fans allegedly infringing Atomberg’s registered design.
The dispute centers on the aesthetic and functional elements of ceiling fan designs, raising critical questions about novelty, prior publication, and the scope of appellate interference in discretionary orders.
Factual Background
Atomberg Technologies, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, is based in Navi Mumbai. Since 2015, it has sold ceiling fans, initially online and later through retail channels. With a sales turnover exceeding ₹103 crores in 2021–2022, Atomberg claims innovation and success in the fan market.
Its design—Atomberg Renesa Ceiling Fan—was created in September 2018 and registered on 8 September 2018 under registration number 306994. Atomberg claims uniqueness in the fan’s shape and configuration. A deed of assignment dated 15 February 2021 further solidified its legal claim.
The defendant, Luker Electric, also a prominent player in the market, had a reported turnover of ₹299.42 crores. Luker registered two fan designs on 21 March 2022—Size Zero Fan 1 and Size Zero Fan 2. Atomberg alleged that Size Zero Fan 1 slavishly copied essential features of its design, citing a comparison table. Luker denied infringement and claimed prior publication of Atomberg’s design through social media and commercial documents.
Procedural Background
Atomberg filed suit in the Bombay High Court for a permanent injunction and filed an interim application for temporary restraint against Luker. Atomberg also requested appointment of a court receiver and disclosure of sales and manufacturing details.
Luker opposed the interim application with supporting documents, arguing lack of novelty and prior publication. The Single Judge dismissed the interim relief, leading Atomberg to file a commercial appeal heard by a Division Bench.
Core Dispute
The core question was whether Luker’s Size Zero fans infringed Atomberg’s registered design and whether it amounted to passing off.
Atomberg alleged imitation of its fan’s aesthetic features and challenged Luker’s design registration as fraudulent. Luker countered that Atomberg’s design lacked novelty due to earlier disclosure and was not significantly distinguishable from existing designs. Luker also argued that the design was functional and thus not protected under Section 4(c).
On passing off, Luker emphasized absence of false representation and highlighted packaging and product differences.
Discussion on Judgments
Atomberg’s References:
- Frito-Lay North America Inc. v. Balaji Wafers Pvt. Ltd. – even minor changes in design can be substantial in aesthetic products like fans.
- Videocon Industries Ltd. v. Whirlpool of India Ltd. – design innovation can be based on aesthetic appeal.
Luker’s References:
- Faber Castell v. Pik Pen – design lacks novelty if published prior to registration.
- Selvel Industries v. Om Plast – registrable design must be significantly different from existing ones.
- Philips Lighting v. Jai Prakash Agarwal – functional features are not protectable under design law.
- Unreported order in Appeal No. 62 of 2012 – highlighted importance of prior publication.
Both Parties Cited: Wander Ltd. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd. – governing appellate interference in discretionary orders.
Atomberg Also Cited: Ramakant Ambala Choksi v. Harish Ambala Choksi – reinforced principles of appellate jurisdiction.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge’s decision. It found the design had been disclosed via social media posts and commercial documents (exhibits Q, R, and S) before the registration date. Atomberg’s failure to disclose this prior publication in the plaint was a significant omission.
The judges found insufficient novelty in the registered design and agreed it could be a trade variant. Arguments regarding aesthetic vs. functional features were considered, with the court siding with the view that features were primarily functional.
On passing off, the court emphasized that similarity in design alone is insufficient without evidence of misrepresentation. Luker’s product differences were enough to negate the likelihood of confusion.
Final Decision
The Division Bench dismissed Atomberg’s appeal and interim application. No costs were imposed. The court held that Atomberg failed to establish a prima facie case of design infringement or passing off.
Law Settled in This Case
- Designs published before registration are not protectable under Sections 2(d) and 4 of the Designs Act.
- Non-disclosure of prior publications can affect interim relief.
- Functional features are not eligible for design registration.
- A registrable design must differ significantly from existing ones.
- Passing off requires more than design similarity—there must be misrepresentation.
- Appellate courts must not interfere unless the lower court’s decision is arbitrary or perverse (per Wander Ltd.).
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
