Praveen Murarka v. Bhama Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd.

For any founder who has ever poured blood, sweat, and capital into designing a product that finally clicks with the market, the nightmare scenario is waking up to find a near-identical copy sitting on a competitor's shelf. Design infringement cases are rarely about blatant theft; they live in the uncomfortable grey zone of 'close enough.' A recent battle between two water bottle brands, Kool Kommandar and Cool Cutie, pulled back the curtain on a critical question every product designer must understand: when courts judge whether a design has been copied, should they demand exact similitude, or is the everyday 'look alike' test the real standard? This case is a masterclass in why that distinction matters.

Praveen Murarka, the appellant, was the registered proprietor of a design for a water bottle marketed under the name 'Kool Kommandar.' Believing that his registered design had been copied, Murarka took aim at Bhama Enterpriess India Pvt. Ltd., the respondent, which was selling a competing water bottle branded as 'Cool Cutie.' Murarka sought an injunction to stop the alleged infringement of his registered design. The dispute first landed before the Commercial Court, which refused to grant the injunction. Murarka then escalated the matter to the Madhya Pradesh High Court, arguing that the lower court had applied the wrong legal standard when comparing the two products.

At the heart of the legal fight was a fundamental disagreement over how to measure design infringement under the Designs Act, 2000. Murarka argued that the proper test was the 'look alike' factor, meaning that when the two bottles were placed side by side, an ordinary observer would see them as substantially the same. He contended that the Commercial Court had erred by demanding a stricter standard of 'exact similitude,' essentially requiring the designs to be virtually identical before infringement could be found. The respondent, Bhama Enterpriess, pushed back, defending the lower court's reasoning and the narrower standard it had applied. The legal friction boiled down to this: should design protection be reserved only for perfect clones, or should it extend to products that mimic the overall visual impression of a registered design?

The Madhya Pradesh High Court sided with Murarka. The Court found that the designs of the two water bottles were substantially similar and held that the Commercial Court had misapplied the law by insisting on a standard of 'exact similitude.' The High Court clarified that under the Designs Act, 2000, the correct approach is the 'look alike' test, which asks whether the products, when viewed side by side, give the impression of being the same design to an ordinary observer. Setting aside the lower court's order, the High Court allowed Murarka's injunction, giving the registered design of Kool Kommandar the protection it deserved.

For founders, designers, and IP professionals, the lesson is sharp and practical: when defending a registered design, do not let a court trap you into proving that the infringer's product is a perfect replica. The law under the Designs Act, 2000, protects against 'look alike' products, not just pixel-perfect copies. If you are building a brand around a distinctive product design, document it thoroughly, register it promptly, and be prepared to demonstrate substantial similarity through side-by-side comparison rather than chasing an impossible standard of exactness. In design disputes, the eye of the ordinary consumer is your strongest witness.