- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Polycab India restricted from manufacturing deceptively similar fan after Atomberg files for infringement: Bombay High Court
Polycab India restricted from manufacturing deceptively similar fan after Atomberg files for infringement: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court in an ex parte order restrained Polycab India Ltd, a leading electrical appliance manufacturer from marketing its fan on the grounds that it has identical design as that of 'Atomberg Renesa Ceiling Fan'.
The Court granted temporary injunction in favour of the Mumbai based fan manufacturer Atomberg Technologies Pvt. Ltd. in a commercial IPR suit stating that Polycab has reproduced the overall design, shape, configuration, and get-up of Atomberg's Renesa Ceiling Fan.
"Prima facie, it appears that the Defendant has blatantly copied, created a replica and/or reproduced the overall design, shape, configuration, get up of the Plaintiff's Atomberg Renesa Ceiling Fan," said the court.
On comparing the goods of the two brands, the Court observed that the design of Polycab' fan is an imitation of Atomberg's registered design.
"The Defendant must have had the Plaintiff's Atomberg Renesa Ceiling Fan before it while designing the impugned fan," the court added.
The Court also said traders and public coming across Polycab's fan, which has "deceptively similar" shape, configuration, design and aesthetic appeal as that of Atomberg Renesa Ceiling Fan, are likely to be confused or deceived into believing that fans offered by Polycab are those of Atomberg.
Atomberg manufactures a ceiling fan named Atomberg Renesa Ceiling Fan which has a unique and novel shape and configuration, the plaint stated. It is registered in Class 23 – 04 having design registration number 309694, according to the suit.
The plaint further stated that the Renesa Ceiling Fan is one of the largest selling fans of the company. Atomberg became aware about the impugned product Polycab Wizzy in August, the court was told.
The court said an "overwhelming prima facie infringement" of the plaintiff's registered design and passing off of the product is made out, and that unless the reliefs as prayed for are not granted, the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss, harm and injury.
The court restrained Polycab from manufacturing, selling, marketing, retailing, exporting, distributing, trading, exhibiting for sale and advertising the fans bearing the shape or design which is identical with or deceptively similar to the products of Atomberg Technologies.
The court extended the interim relief till the next date, which is 21 November, 2022.