Decided on: 14-05-2026
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
Citation – CS(COMM) 331/2026; 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 498
Introduction
In the present case, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited from manufacturing, selling, advertising or otherwise dealing in its ‘Grace’ series of BLDC ceiling fans, on a finding of a prima facie case of design infringement of Orient Electric’s registered ‘AEON’ Fan design. The court rejected the defendant’s attempt to challenge the novelty of the registered design by “mosaicing” together features from seven different prior art references, and instead applied the “instructed eye” standard to compare the two fans, having physically examined both products in court.
Factual Background
The Plaintiff, Orient Electric Limited, is part of the CKA Birla Group (formerly the CK Birla Group), a diversified conglomerate with a presence across five continents in sectors including technology, automotive, home and building, and healthcare. Orient has been a distinguished name in the Indian fan industry for over 60 years and claims to be one of the largest manufacturers and exporters of fans in the country. The development of the ‘AEON’ Fan Series commenced in 2022 with industrial drawings and CAD models, followed by several design iterations and prototype development. After a preliminary design search to confirm compliance with the novelty requirement under the Designs Act, 2000, the plaintiff was granted Registration Certificate no. 393299-001 on 9th April 2024 and commercially launched the AEON series in May 2024. A further registration for a variant of the series, bearing Certificate no. 443637-001, was obtained on 9th January 2025.
The plaintiff claimed that the fan was innovative in terms of its design and structure, which included the tapered blade geometry, the compact hub assembly, the seamless transition between the blade and the hub, the motor housing, and the decorative lower cap, all of which contributed to the creation of a distinctive sculptural profile. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s ‘GRACE’ Fan Series reproduced the dominant visual features of the AEON design, with the intent of taking advantage of the plaintiff’s hard-earned market reputation and goodwill, and of misrepresenting and passing off its goods as those of the plaintiff. The plaintiff accordingly filed I.A. 8378/2026 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC seeking an interim injunction restraining infringement of its registered design.
Analysis
The defendant resisted the injunction primarily on the ground that the AEON design lacked novelty, arguing that it was a mosaic of features drawn from seven prior art references, including designs associated with Atomberg, Luker, and an earlier Crompton design, and placed before the court a feature-by-feature comparison chart mapping elements of the AEON design against each of these prior arts. The court rejected this defence, holding that novelty must be assessed by treating each cited prior art as a composite whole, and not by extracting and stitching together individual features from different sources a practice impermissible under settled design law. Examining each of the seven prior arts individually, the court found that none of them, taken as a whole, disclosed all the features protected under the AEON registration. The court implemented the “instructed eye” standard in its determination of infringement, conducting a physical examination of both the AEON and GRACE fans in court. It determined that the visual similarity in the blade design was “unmistakable,” observing that the curve at the blade tip, the longitudinal blade profile, and the shape of the bottom cover were identical in both products. Although the defendant’s canopy was slightly more dome-shaped than the plaintiff’s hourglass-like canopy, the court determined that such minor or peripheral differences in non-essential features could not prevent a finding of infringement in cases where the essential features had been copied. The defendant’s failure to deny that its design was similar to the plaintiff’s registered design at any point in its reply was also crucial to the court. A significant issue before the court was whether an injunction should be granted at all, given that the GRACE fans had already been launched in the market. At the initial hearing on March 30, 2026, the defendant’s counsel stated that the GRACE fans had been deployed in four states on or before March 20, 2026, upon instructions. The plaintiff did not go after an immediate ad-interim injunction based on this assertion. Nevertheless, the defendant’s subsequent filings, which included invoices, demonstrated that retail sales had indeed commenced on April 6, 2026, subsequent to the initial hearing.
The court treated this inconsistency as material, observing that it would ordinarily not grant an injunction after a product’s launch, but that the discrepancy between counsel’s earlier statement, made on instructions and recorded in the order dated 30th March 2026, and the later-filed affidavits and invoices, compelled it to protect the plaintiff’s interests at this stage.
Conclusion
The court restrained the defendant from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, or otherwise dealing in the impugned GRACE fan series, or in any other ceiling fan that is a fraudulent or obvious imitation of the plaintiff’s registered design. Sales already completed were not disturbed, but the defendant was directed to maintain records of all sales made from 6th April 2026 onwards and to file the same by affidavit in a sealed cover within four weeks. The matter was listed next on 17th July 2026. This order is significant in Indian design law, as it reaffirms that the novelty of a registered design cannot be defeated by mosaicing disparate features from multiple prior art references each prior art must be assessed as a composite whole against the registered design, not dismantled into a collection of extractable features. It is also significant for its treatment of post-launch interim relief. The court demonstrated that it will closely scrutinise a defendant’s representations regarding the date of a product’s market launch, and that a material inconsistency between counsel’s statement on instructions and the defendant’s own contemporaneous business records can justify interim protection even where the injunction is sought after a competing product has already entered the market.
About MAHESHWARI & CO.
MAHESHWARI AND CO. is a full-service Law Firm that represents its clients in a number of complex and high-value transactions. The firm works across four principal practice areas, Intellectual Property Rights, Corporate Law, Taxation and Litigation.
The Firm is well positioned to help inventors leverage the Patents Regime in India, aiming to accelerate and strengthen patent grant outcomes for its clients. As a trusted legal partner offering end-to-end IP services, including Patentability assessments, drafting and filing patent applications, to strategic prosecution and patent portfolio management, enforcement and litigation, the firm can guide clients through the complex procedural and substantive requirements of patent applications in India and Internationally with alacrity and prompt efficiency.