Ttk Prestige Ltd v. Kcm Appliances Private Limited

In the crowded world of kitchen appliances, where products often look and feel interchangeable, one company decided that a single design feature on a pressure cooker lid was worth fighting for in court. The question was simple but loaded: when a competitor borrows the exact look of your innovation, can the law step in to protect it, even if the design serves a functional purpose? This case answers that question with a resounding yes, and it carries a critical lesson for every founder who believes that utility alone shields them from design infringement claims.

TTK Prestige Ltd, a well-known name in the Indian kitchen appliance industry, held a registered design for a pressure cooker featuring a distinctive anti-spillage lid. This was not just any lid; its unique shape and configuration were central to the product's identity and market appeal. KCM Appliances Private Limited entered the scene with a competing pressure cooker that, according to TTK Prestige, mirrored the very features that made the registered design distinctive. Believing its intellectual property had been copied, TTK Prestige filed a suit alleging piracy of its registered design, setting the stage for a direct confrontation over originality and ownership.

TTK Prestige argued that its registered design was a product of genuine innovation, particularly the anti-spillage lid configuration that gave the pressure cooker its unique character. The company maintained that KCM Appliances had clearly borrowed this core idea, producing a cooker that was visually and structurally too similar to ignore. On the other side, KCM Appliances pushed back by challenging the very validity of TTK Prestige's design registration, attempting to undermine the foundation of the infringement claim. The legal friction centered on a pivotal question: could a design that serves a clear functional purpose, like preventing spillage, still qualify for protection under the Designs Act, and did the defendant's product cross the line into infringement?

The court sided firmly with TTK Prestige. It found that the challenge raised against the validity of the design registration lacked substance, meaning the registration stood as a legitimate and enforceable right. More importantly, the court concluded that KCM Appliances' product prima facie infringed TTK Prestige's registered design. The ruling affirmed that a functional design is not automatically excluded from protection; what matters is whether the aesthetic features of the design impart novelty and originality. Because the defendant's product reflected a clear borrowing of the plaintiff's core idea, the infringement was established, and TTK Prestige walked away with a favorable outcome.

For founders and IP professionals, this case delivers a powerful reminder: do not assume that a functional product feature is beyond the reach of design law. If your design incorporates aesthetic elements that are novel and original, it can be registered and defended under the Designs Act. Equally important, copying the core visual idea of a competitor's registered design, even in a utilitarian product like a pressure cooker, can constitute infringement. Invest in protecting your unique design features early, and conduct thorough design clearance searches before launching products that borrow heavily from established players in the market.