Bombay High Court Restores Injunction To Protect Atomberg's Fan Design From Imitation By Stove Kraft

The Bombay High Court has restored an interim injunction restraining Stove Kraft Limited from manufacturing and selling its Pigeon Fan-tastic ceiling fan, finding that its design imitates the distinctive appearance of Atomberg Technologies' Renesa Alpha fan.

“The primary test to determine novelty, originality and infringement under the Designs Act, 2000, is the 'eye' test to evaluate whether two designs are substantially identical or if an imitation has occurred through visual comparison, then the technical analysis or breaking it down into a minute or isolated differences, is not permissible,” a Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande observed.

Therefore, the court ruled, “The novelty of the shape and configuration of its petals giving rise to an overall appearance, became peculiar to its product i.e. ceiling fan Renesa Alpha and its subsequent variations and since the distinctive appearance of this fan has been slavishly copied by the respondent and, in our view, a case for passing off is clearly made out,”

The court set aside a Single Judge's April 17, 2026 order refusing interim relief to Atomberg in its design infringement and passing off dispute with Stove Kraft. It restored the ad-interim order dated July 24, 2025, which restrained Stove Kraft from manufacturing, using, selling, exhibiting or advertising the impugned fan and appointed a Court Receiver to take possession and control of the fans.

Atomberg had alleged that Stove Kraft's 'Pigeon fan-tastic BLDC Ceiling fan' copied the registered design of its 'Atomberg Renesa Alpha' ceiling fan. The design was registered on January 1, 2020, under registration number 325322-001 in Class 23-04.

Atomberg argued that the novelty of its design lay in the fan's overall shape and configuration, including its petal-shaped blades, asymmetric tapering, a subtle V-bend along the blades, curved body and canopy. The company also relied on the fan's overall appearance.

The Division Bench found that Atomberg had conceptualised the design in 2019 and commercially used it since November 2020, while Stove Kraft adopted the disputed design in February 2025. It also noted that Stove Kraft had not produced prior art showing that the combination of features claimed by Atomberg already existed in the market.

The court rejected the emphasis placed on the shape of the fan's shaft to distinguish the competing products. It noted that the Z-shaped shaft had not been claimed as a novel feature in Atomberg's registration application or certificate.

On comparing the fans, the Bench found that the novelty lay in the petal-shaped blades and their configuration, which gave the product its overall appearance. It held that the competing designs had to be assessed as a whole, rather than by dissecting them into individual features and focusing on isolated differences.

The Bench also found that Atomberg had established goodwill and reputation through a chartered accountant's certificate, representative invoices, promotional material and sales figures. It noted that the rival fans targeted the same class of consumers and could be sold through overlapping trade channels, including online platforms.

The court observed that consumers could mistake Stove Kraft's fan for an Atomberg product, a variant of its fan or a product commercially associated with the company. It held that actual instances of confusion need not be established in a passing off action.

“In any case, in an action of passing off the actual confusion need not be established and it is sufficient to establish that there is likelihood of confusion,” the Bench observed.

The court also found that Stove Kraft's adoption of the disputed design was likely to divert Atomberg's sales and erode its goodwill, which had been established through sales figures and continuous use of the design in the market.

Allowing Atomberg's appeal, the Bench restrained Stove Kraft from infringing Atomberg's registered design and from manufacturing, selling, marketing, retailing, exporting, distributing, trading, exhibiting for sale, advertising or otherwise dealing in fans bearing a shape, configuration or design identical or deceptively similar to Atomberg's fan, pending final disposal of the suit. The court also restored the order appointing the Court Receiver.

Atomberg had sought ₹110 crore in damages or, alternatively, an account of profits earned through the sale of the impugned fan.