M/S.Maya Appliances Pvt Ltd. v. Preethi Kitchen Appliances Pvt Ltd.

In the world of kitchen appliances, where products often look alike, the line between healthy competition and design infringement can blur. But what happens when a court puts two allegedly similar products side by side and finds them fundamentally different? This case between two Indian kitchen appliance manufacturers offers a masterclass in why visual resemblance alone is not enough to prove design piracy — and why rushing to court with an injunction can backfire spectacularly.

M/S. Maya Appliances Pvt Ltd., the appellant in this case, found itself on the wrong side of an interim order that had effectively restricted its ability to manufacture and sell its mixer grinder base unit. The order had been granted on the basis of alleged copyright infringement, with the claim originating from Preethi Kitchen Appliances Pvt Ltd., the respondent. At the heart of the dispute was a registered design for a mixer grinder base — specifically, the tripod-style base that supports the grinding unit. Both companies held registrations for their respective designs, setting the stage for a head-on collision between two players in the competitive kitchen appliance market. Maya Appliances challenged the injunction order, arguing that the comparison between the two products did not support the claim of infringement.

The legal friction in this case centered on a fundamental question: were the two tripod bases substantially similar in shape and configuration, or were they distinct enough to coexist in the market? The respondent, Preethi Kitchen Appliances, had successfully argued before the lower court that the appellant's design was a fraudulent imitation of its own registered design, leading to the grant of an interim injunction. Maya Appliances countered that the two designs, when examined carefully, revealed clear and meaningful differences. The appellant insisted that the shape, proportions, and overall configuration of its tripod base were distinct from those of the respondent, and that no honest observer would confuse the two products. The core legal battle thus became a visual and technical comparison — a test of whether striking similarity existed between the two registered designs.

The court undertook a detailed side-by-side examination of both designs, paying close attention to the shape and configuration of the tripod bases. After careful scrutiny, the court concluded that there were no substantial similarities between the two designs. The distinct differences in shape and configuration were significant enough to negate any claim of fraudulent imitation. As a result, the court allowed the appeals filed by Maya Appliances and set aside the previous interim orders that had restricted the company's operations. The ruling underscored a critical principle: the mere existence of two registered designs in the same product category does not automatically mean one infringes the other. Substantial similarity must be demonstrable, not assumed.

For founders and IP professionals, this case delivers a clear and practical lesson: before pursuing or defending against a design infringement claim, invest in a rigorous, side-by-side comparison of the registered designs. Courts will not grant or uphold injunctions based on superficial resemblance alone — they look for striking similarity and a likelihood of confusion. If your product's shape, proportions, and configuration are genuinely distinct, you have strong grounds to challenge an injunction. Conversely, if you are the one alleging infringement, be prepared to demonstrate concrete and substantial similarities, not just general visual overlap. In design-heavy industries like kitchen appliances, where products naturally share functional features, the burden of proving true design piracy is higher than many assume.