Bombay High Court Upholds Denial of Interim Injunction in Atomberg-Luker Design Dispute

On July 25, 2025, the Bombay High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Atomberg Technologies Private Limited against a Single Judge’s order refusing an interim injunction in a design infringement and passing off suit against Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited. The court upheld the finding that Atomberg’s registered design for its Renesa ceiling fan lacked novelty due to prior publication and was merely a trade variant, thereby denying relief against Luker’s allegedly infringing fans.

Atomberg, known for its energy-efficient ceiling fans, had secured design registration no. 306994 in India under Class 23-04 on September 8, 2018, for its Renesa ceiling fan. The design was created by Atomberg’s directors and assigned to the company on February 15, 2021. Atomberg asserted that the fan featured unique aesthetic elements such as a streamlined dome-shaped canopy, a motor cover with curved edges, and blades with a distinctive upsweep. These features contributed to the fan’s commercial success, with reported sales turnover of Rs. 103.64 crores in 2021-2022. The product was marketed under the Atomberg and Gorilla house marks, with Atomberg gradually discontinuing the Gorilla branding.

In March 2022, Atomberg discovered that Luker Electric Technologies, a well-established ceiling fan manufacturer with sales of Rs. 299.42 crores in 2021-2022, had obtained design registrations for its Size Zero Fan 1 and Size Zero Fan 2. Atomberg alleged that Luker’s designs fraudulently imitated its registered design, noting that Size Zero Fan 1 was already in the market and Size Zero Fan 2 was forthcoming. Consequently, Atomberg filed a commercial suit in 2023 seeking injunctions for design infringement under the Designs Act, 2000, and passing off, along with an interim relief application. The Single Judge dismissed the interim application, prompting Atomberg’s appeal.

The legal issues before the court included whether Atomberg’s Renesa fan design was novel and original or invalidated by prior publication under Sections 4(b) and 19(b) of the Designs Act, 2000; whether the design was a trade variant lacking significant distinction from known designs under Section 4(c); whether Atomberg suppressed material facts regarding prior disclosures affecting entitlement to interim relief; and whether a prima facie case of design infringement and passing off was established to justify an interim injunction.

Atomberg contended that its design incorporated novel aesthetic features not previously combined in any fan, including a dome-shaped canopy with a smooth curve, a motor cover with a seamless finish, and uniquely upswept blades. It argued that Luker’s Size Zero Fans slavishly copied these elements. Atomberg emphasized continuous use since 2018, goodwill evidenced by awards and high-profile clients, and vigilance in protecting its rights. It denied prior publication, asserting that social media posts and documents from August 2018 depicted a different fan model, Renesa+, with distinct features such as a visible LED indicator and a different canopy shape. Atomberg physically produced these fans in court to demonstrate the differences.

Atomberg further claimed that Luker’s 2022 design registrations were fraudulent and rejected allegations of suppression, noting that the plaint disclosed the evolution from Gorilla branding. On passing off, Atomberg argued that Luker’s fans were deceptively similar in shape, likely to mislead consumers.

Luker countered by asserting its reputation and significant investment in research and development. It argued that its fans were independently developed and challenged the validity of Atomberg’s registration. Luker pointed to prior publication through Atomberg’s own August 2018 social media posts, delivery challans, and invoices for “Gorilla Renesa” fans, which predated the registration date and contravened Sections 4(b) and 19(b) of the Designs Act.

Luker further argued that Atomberg’s design was a mere trade variant of existing Renesa range fans, with features like curved edges being functional and not significantly distinguishable under Section 4(c). Luker submitted a comparison table highlighting differences such as Luker’s matte finish and distinct blade curvature.

Regarding passing off, Luker contended that mere shape similarity was insufficient without additional deceptive elements such as misleading labeling. Luker also alleged that Atomberg suppressed prior sales documents, which should preclude equitable relief.

The Bombay High Court observed that Atomberg’s design registration was prima facie diluted by evidence of prior publication, including social media posts and invoices from 2018 depicting similar fans under the Gorilla Renesa name, which Atomberg itself described as interchangeable with the registered design. The court found Atomberg’s failure to disclose these materials in the plaint amounted to suppression of material facts, negatively impacting the court’s discretion to grant interim relief.

The court rejected Atomberg’s explanation that Gorilla was merely a house mark, deeming it unpersuasive at the prima facie stage. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, maintaining the refusal of interim injunction against Luker Electric Technologies.