Introduction: The case of Travel Blue Products India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Miniso Life Style Pvt. Ltd. presents a detailed exploration of the legal thresholds that govern protection under the Designs Act, 2000 and the tort of passing off. The plaintiffs, Travel Blue Products India Pvt. Ltd. and its parent company Travel Blue Limited, brought this action before the Bombay High Court alleging that the defendants, Miniso Life Style Pvt. Ltd. and Miniso Hong Kong Ltd., had engaged in piracy of a registered design and passed off their travel neck pillows as those of the plaintiffs. This case turned on whether the plaintiffs’ registered design, being aesthetic in nature, was entitled to statutory protection and whether the defendants’ products amounted to an obvious imitation, thereby infringing the design and creating a likelihood of consumer confusion.
Factual Background: Travel Blue Limited, a UK-based company, is the original creator and manufacturer of a unique travel accessory known as the "Tranquility Neck Pillow." Its Indian subsidiary, Travel Blue Products India Pvt. Ltd., markets and sells these products through both online and offline channels. The Tranquility Pillow was designed in 2015 and registered as a design in India on 24 July 2017, with a reciprocity claim from 19 October 2015. The registration number assigned was 281315, and the protection was extended until 2030. This design has also been registered in jurisdictions such as the European Union, China, the United States, and Australia.
The plaintiffs claimed that the Tranquility Pillow achieved substantial market recognition, with the Indian entity reporting sales figures exceeding ₹70 lakhs in the financial year 2024-2025 and considerable investments in promotion. The plaintiffs also alleged that the product enjoyed a distinctive reputation through wide publicity and customer recognition in India.
The defendants, including Miniso Life Style Pvt. Ltd. and its Hong Kong-based affiliate, were alleged to have introduced a travel neck pillow in the Indian market that copied not only the design but also the distinctive colors used by the plaintiffs, such as gray, blue, purple, and pink. The plaintiffs alleged that the impugned products were an obvious imitation of their registered design and filed the present suit for design piracy and passing off.
Procedural Background: The plaintiffs initially approached the Bombay High Court seeking interim relief, which was granted by an ad-interim order dated 24 September 2024. This restrained the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or advertising the impugned product. In response, the defendants entered appearance and filed an affidavit-in-reply challenging the maintainability of the claim. While at first there was some dispute over whether the defendants needed to file a formal application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, both parties eventually agreed to treat the interim application as final. The Court reserved judgment after the final hearing on 24 June 2025 and delivered its decision on 31 July 2025.
Core Dispute: The principal question before the Court was whether the defendants had infringed the plaintiffs’ registered design and thereby committed piracy as defined under Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000. The dispute also encompassed whether the defendants’ conduct amounted to passing off. Central to the resolution of these questions were the issues of whether the plaintiffs' design was validly registered and entitled to protection, or whether it was disqualified due to being primarily functional or lacking novelty in light of prior art. The Court was also called upon to consider whether there had been suppression of material facts by the plaintiffs in the proceedings for interim relief.
Discussion on Judgments: The plaintiffs supported their claim by relying on several precedents. Paramount among them was the decision in Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. Videocon Industries Ltd., where the Bombay High Court had held that if a particular function could be achieved through numerous different forms, then the defence of functionality must fail. This proposition was critical to support the plaintiffs’ contention that their design, though partially functional, had sufficient aesthetic appeal to qualify for registration. The plaintiffs also cited Videocon Industries Ltd. v. Whirlpool of India Ltd., Sirona Hygiene Pvt. Ltd. v. Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd., and Faber-Castell Aktiengesellschaft v. Pikpen Pvt. Ltd., all of which emphasized the necessity of visual appeal and the distinctiveness of design for establishing design infringement. In Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. v. DS Innovative Products LLP and Frito-Lay North America Inc. v. Balaji Wafers Pvt. Ltd., the courts reiterated the standard of deception and misrepresentation in passing off claims. The plaintiffs drew further support from Asian Rubber Industries v. Jasco Rubbers, Faber-Castell Aktiengesellschaft v. Cello Pens Pvt. Ltd., and Selvel Industries v. Om Plast (India), which upheld protection for designs that, although functionally relevant, possessed distinct aesthetic appeal.
In defence, the defendants referred to the Supreme Court’s recent pronouncement in Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd., to argue that the test of “only option” had been replaced by the “dominant purpose of functional utility” test. They further relied on Smithkline Beecham Plc v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., where the Delhi High Court held that a toothbrush's S-shape was primarily functional. The defendants cited ITC Ltd. v. Controller of Patents and Designs to underscore that the functional aspects of a product should not be protected under design law. Additional references included Indiana Gratings Pvt. Ltd. v. Anand Udyog Fabricators Pvt. Ltd., Atomberg Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Luker Electric Technologies Pvt. Ltd., and Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, all of which reiterated the exclusion of purely functional features from the ambit of design protection.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge: Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh began her analysis by emphasizing the definition of “design” under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000. The definition mandates that a design must have features that appeal to and are judged solely by the eye, and that it must not be a mere mechanical device. The Court noted that while some features of the Tranquility Pillow might serve a functional purpose, the overall shape and configuration were aesthetically appealing and could not be considered purely functional.
The Court found that the defendants had accepted in their own affidavit that the plaintiffs’ product had visual appeal. Therefore, they could not subsequently argue that the design was unregistrable due to functionality. The pocket attached to the pillow, claimed by the defendants to be the core element, was held to be a mechanical appendage and not a contributor to visual distinctiveness. Moreover, the registration certificate specifically stated that the novelty resided in the shape and configuration of the neck pillow, and not in the mechanical function of the pocket.
The Court dismissed the argument that the design was not novel due to prior art. The materials produced by the defendants failed to establish that any similar design had been published in India or any foreign jurisdiction prior to the plaintiffs’ design. The illustrations annexed by the defendants were either from international jurisdictions without proper publication records or were not visually or configurationally similar to the plaintiffs' product.
Justice Deshmukh affirmed the continuing applicability of the “only option” test as laid down in Whirlpool v. Videocon, holding that the Supreme Court in Cryogas had not overturned this principle but rather contextualized it in the realm of copyright law. She held that as long as the same functional result could be achieved through a number of other visual designs, and as long as the design under scrutiny had eye appeal, it was registrable. Applying these principles, the Court concluded that the plaintiffs’ design was validly registered and entitled to protection under the Designs Act.
On the issue of passing off, the Court observed that the plaintiffs had established goodwill through consistent sales and marketing since 2015. The defendants’ product bore such close resemblance that a consumer could be easily deceived into thinking it originated from the plaintiffs. Since the neck pillow was typically displayed without packaging, the similarity in shape, color, and configuration was deemed likely to cause confusion.
Final Decision: The Court granted interim relief to the plaintiffs. The defendants were restrained from manufacturing, advertising, or selling any product that constituted an obvious imitation of the plaintiffs' registered design. They were also directed to remove online listings of the impugned products. The Court held that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case of both design infringement and passing off. The balance of convenience lay with the plaintiffs, and irreparable harm would result if the defendants were allowed to continue their activities.
Law Settled in This Case: This judgment reaffirms that a design which has both functional and aesthetic components can qualify for protection under the Designs Act, 2000, as long as the aesthetic appeal is discernible and not dictated solely by function. The “only option” test continues to apply in design infringement cases, even after the Supreme Court’s decision in Cryogas. The Court clarified that international registrations without evidence of prior publication or visual similarity cannot serve as grounds for cancellation of an Indian registered design. Further, the judgment reinforced that even in the absence of identical replication, a product that creates a similar visual impression may amount to passing off if there is likelihood of consumer deception.
Case Title: Travel Blue Products India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Miniso Life Style Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
Date of Order: 31st July, 2025
Case Number: Interim Application (L) No. 28407 of 2024 in Commercial IPR Suit (L) No. 28275 of 2024
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:12294
Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Name of Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
No comments:
Post a Comment