Atomberg Technologies Pvt Ltd, a producer of fans, recently received an ad interim order from the Bombay High Court in a design infringement lawsuit it filed against Polycab India Ltd.
Although the respondent’s attorney Vinod Bhagat objected to the application being heard ex-parte and asked for more time to consult with the defendant, Justice RI Chagla found that the complainant’s arguments were, at the very least, substantive and that serving notice would defeat the purpose of an ex-parte application.
“In light of these arguments and the fact that Mr. Kamod’s motion seems to have some merit on the surface, I am unable to accept Mr. Bhagat’s argument. A case is made for examining the Application ex parte, but, given that the issue is being moved ex parte and the goal of ex parte sought would be defeated if notice is given to the Defendant. The matter is therefore being discussed ex parte “said the Court.
The plaintiff’s attorney, Hiren Kamod, informed the court that in August 2022, the plaintiff’s agent was made aware of the defendant’s fan’s clear counterfeit of the plaintiff’s Atomberg Renesa Ceiling Fan, for which the plaintiff had obtained design registration.
He asserted that the features and design were imitated on purpose in order to profit unjustly, and that the defendant’s dishonesty was demonstrated by the fact that they had also imitated some aspects of the plaintiff’s packaging.
In order to prevent the defendant from violating the registered design and passing off, he claimed that an ex-parte ad interim order must be issued. In his opinion, if the defendant received notice, they might oversupply the market with these fans, defeating the aim of the application.
After evaluating both items, the Court found that there was prima facie evidence of a design infringement and found that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if remedy was not granted.
“Given the facts, passing off and flagrant infringement of the Plaintiff’s registered design are proven prima facie. If the requested reliefs are not granted, the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss, pain, and injury, and the balance of convenience is also in the plaintiff’s favour “it declared.
Therefore, it prohibited the defendant from violating the plaintiff’s fan design by selling, producing, trading, retailing, exporting, distributing, and advertising the infringing fans until the case was finally resolved.
