Industry Sector

Home Appliances — India Design Cases

8 decisions indexed

Page 1 of 1 · 8 total

design plaintiff favorable · Dec 14, 2023

V Guard Industries Ltd v.Ms Mahavir Home Appliances And Anr. & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 57985629

The dispute concerning the registered design for ceiling fans was amicably resolved by both parties. The Defendants recognized the Plaintiff's exclusive rights and agreed to cease production/distribution of similar designs, while also undertaking to withdraw pending cancellation petitions against the design. However, the court noted a separate legal issue regarding the refund of court fees in private settlements.

design plaintiff favorable · Nov 6, 2023

Ttk Prestige Ltd. v.Nirlon Kitchenware Private Ltd.

Madras High Court · 72264140

Ttk Prestige Ltd. filed a suit against Nirlon Kitchenware Private Ltd. alleging infringement of its registered designs for pressure cookers and passing off due to the defendant's use of identical shapes, configurations, and phonetically similar marks like 'Svachh'. The court found in favor of the plaintiff.

design plaintiff favorable · Apr 13, 2023

Ttk Prestige Ltd v.Kcm Appliances Private Limited

Delhi High Court · 2773745

Ttk Prestige Ltd filed a suit alleging piracy of its registered design for a pressure cooker. The core dispute centered on whether the unique, anti-spillage lid design was protectable and if Kcm Appliances Private Limited had copied this feature. The court found that the challenge to the registration's validity lacked substance and concluded that the defendant's product prima facie infringed the plaintiff's registered design.

design defendant favorable · Jan 9, 2017

M/S Maya Appliances Private Limited v.Butterfly Gandhimathi Appliances Ltd.

Madras High Court · 108011813

M/S Maya Appliances Private Limited filed applications seeking temporary injunction against Butterfly Gandhimathi Appliances Ltd., alleging infringement of a registered design and passing off. The Madras High Court examined the claims under the Designs Act, 2000, and found that the petitioner's design did not satisfy the necessary legal tests in this context. Consequently, the court dismissed the applications for temporary injunction but directed both parties to file relevant documents and monthly sales statements as part of the ongoing suit.

design plaintiff favorable · May 27, 2014

Whirlpool Of India Ltd v.Videocon Industries Ltd

Bombay High Court · 188051985

Whirlpool, a manufacturer of washing machines, sued Videocon Industries for infringing its two valid design registrations (Nos. 223833 and 223835) through the 'Videocon Pebble' brand, alleging that the Defendant's product was visually indistinguishable from theirs. The dispute also involved whether infringement or passing off actions could be maintained against a party who held a registered design.

design plaintiff favorable · Jul 25, 2012

M/s.Whirpool Of India Ltd. v.M/s.Videocon Industries Ltd.

Bombay High Court · 74331630

The plaintiff, a manufacturer of consumer products including washing machines, sought an interim injunction against the defendant for infringing two registered designs (Nos. 223833 and 223835) and for passing off its product. The court found that the defendant's product was a deceptive imitation based on the 'judged solely by eye' test, making a prima facie case for infringement.

design interim order · Jul 25, 2012

M/s.Whirpool Of India Ltd. v.M/s.Videocon Industries Ltd.

Bombay High Court · 182912127

The plaintiff, a manufacturer of consumer goods, sought an interim injunction against the defendant for infringing its registered washing machine designs (Nos. 223833 and 223835) and for passing off its products as the plaintiff's. The court found that a prima facie case was made out for infringement and passing off, leading to the grant of ad-interim relief.

design defendant favorable · Apr 3, 1984

Niki Tasha India Pvt. Ltd. v.Faridabad Gas Gadgets Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi High Court · 1030553

The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for allegedly infringing their registered design (Kitchenette) for a gas cooking range. The court examined whether the defendant's product (Navjyoti) was a fraudulent imitation and if the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for an interim injunction.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Protecting your design rights?

Design disputes move fast. Arctic's IP team specializes in interim relief, design invalidation, and cross-border enforcement strategies.

Speak to a specialist →