**Orient Electric Limited v. Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited: Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction in Ceiling Fan Design Infringement Dispute**
Orient Electric Limited Vs. Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited:CS(COMM) 331/2026:2026:DHC:4264:Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Orient Electric Limited, part of the CKA Birla Group and one of India's largest fan manufacturers and exporters, filed a suit seeking interim injunction against Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited, alleging infringement of its registered design no. 393299-001 dated April 9, 2024, pertaining to its 'AEON' series of decorative ceiling fans.
Crompton contested the suit primarily on the ground that the AEON design lacked novelty and originality, arguing that the plaintiff had merely mosaiced individual elements drawn from various pre-existing prior arts including the Atomberg Renesa Enzel, Luker JVLuker USA Cosmos and Crompton's own earlier registered design, to create a composite design that could not qualify for registration.
Court relying extensively on the coordinate bench judgment in TTK Prestige Ltd. v. KCM Appliances Pvt. Ltd. as the governing locus classicus on design infringement jurisprudence, held that mosaicing of prior art designs is impermissible and novelty cannot be attacked by combining individual elements from different prior publications.
The Court observed that none of the seven prior arts cited by the defendant, when viewed as a composite whole, produced the same visual impression as the plaintiff's AEON fan. The Court also physically examined the two rival products and found the visual similarity in the overall blade design unmistakable, noting that the variable width blade design, the fluidic curve at the blade tip, the longitudinal blade profile and the shape of the bottom cover were substantially similar.
The Court further noted that the defendant had conspicuously not denied in its reply that its design was dissimilar to the plaintiff's registered design. On the question of post-launch injunction, the Court held that the contradictory affidavits filed by the defendant regarding the actual date of launch compelled protection of the plaintiff's interests, since the plaintiff had approached the Court before actual retail sales commenced.
Accordingly, the Court restrained Crompton Greaves, its associates, agents, dealers and distributors from manufacturing, marketing and selling the GRACE series or any fan series identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's AEON design, directed that no further sales of the infringing product shall take place from the date of the order, and required the defendant to maintain and disclose sales records by affidavit in a sealed cover within four weeks.
Disclaimer: Do not treat this as a substitute for legal advice as it may contain subjective errors. Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi*
#DesignInfringement, #DesignsAct2000, #OrientElectric, #CromptonGreaves, #DelhiHighCourt, #IntellectualProperty, #IPLaw, #CeilingFanDesign, #InterimInjunction, #IndustrialDesign, #DesignPiracy, #NoveltyAndOriginality, #Mosaicing, #TTKPrestige, #DesignRegistration, #IPLitigation, #IndianIPLaw, #CommercialDispute, #DesignProtection, #AEONFan, #GRACEFan, #IPUpdate, #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, #IPAdjutor
=====
# When Imitation Meets Innovation: The Battle of the Ceiling Fans — Orient Electric vs. Crompton Greaves
# When Imitation Meets Innovation: The Battle of the Ceiling Fans — Orient Electric vs. Crompton Greaves
Mosaicing of Prior Art Impermissible in Design Infringement Cases
Introduction:Intellectual property law in India has long grappled with a deceptively simple question: when does one product's design cross the line from inspiration to imitation? The law of industrial designs, governed by the Designs Act, 2000, seeks to protect the visual and aesthetic identity of commercially produced articles, rewarding those who invest time, creativity and resources in developing novel and original designs. Yet the boundary between legitimate competition and unlawful copying is often contested, particularly in industries where functional constraints naturally limit the scope of creative expression.
The ceiling fan industry presents precisely such a challenge. Fans, by their very functional nature, must rotate, must have blades, must have a motor housing and must be mountable from a ceiling. This inherent functional constraint raises an important question — can a manufacturer claim proprietary rights over the aesthetic appearance of a ceiling fan when many of its visual elements are arguably dictated by function or have appeared in earlier products? And when two competing fans look strikingly similar to the eye, how does a court decide whether that similarity is the result of copying or mere coincidence of design evolution?
The judgment delivered on May 14, 2026 by the High Court of Delhi in the case of Orient Electric Limited versus Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited provides a rich and detailed judicial examination of these questions. The order grants an interim injunction restraining Crompton Greaves from selling its 'GRACE' series of ceiling fans on the ground that they prima facie infringe the registered design of Orient Electric's 'AEON' Fan Series. Beyond its immediate commercial significance, the judgment makes important contributions to the developing jurisprudence on design infringement in India, particularly on the permissibility of mosaicing prior arts, the standard of visual comparison, and the circumstances in which a court may grant injunctions even after a product has been commercially launched.
Factual and Procedural Background: Orient Electric Limited, the plaintiff in the suit, is a company belonging to the CKA Birla Group, formerly known as the CK Birla Group, one of India's most prominent business conglomerates with a presence across five continents and diverse sectors including technology, automotive, home and building products and healthcare. The group, with over 35,000 employees and 52 manufacturing facilities, has been associated with the Indian fan industry for over six decades. Orient Electric itself is a manufacturer and marketer of fans, lighting solutions, home appliances, switchgear and wires, and claims to be the largest exporter of fans from India, with a distribution network spanning 1,25,000 retail outlets and a service network covering more than 450 cities. The company markets its products in over 30 countries and its predecessor had been using the trademark 'Orient' continuously since 1954.
The genesis of the dispute lies in Orient Electric's development of a new range of decorative ceiling fans called the 'AEON' Fan Series. The development process commenced in 2022 and involved the creation of industrial drawings and computer-aided design models by the company's research and development team, followed by multiple design iterations and prototype development. The entire exercise involved an expenditure of approximately Rupees Two Crores. Once the design was finalized, Orient Electric conducted a preliminary design search to confirm that the design satisfied the novelty requirements under the Designs Act, 2000, and thereafter applied for registration. The Controller General of Designs granted the Registration Certificate bearing number 393299-001 on April 9, 2024, in Class 23-04 in respect of the application of the design to a ceiling fan. The registration certificate itself recorded that the novelty of the design resided in the shape and configuration of the ceiling fan as illustrated, and specifically not in any mechanical or functional aspects of the product.
Following registration, Orient Electric commercially launched the AEON Fan Series in the Indian market in May 2024. The company subsequently obtained an additional registration for a variant of the AEON series under Registration Certificate number 443637-001 dated January 9, 2025, which was commercially launched in April 2025. By March 20, 2026, the cumulative sales of the AEON Fan Series had reached approximately Rupees 88.21 Crores, and the company had incurred an advertising and sales promotion expenditure of Rupees 13,123 Lakhs for its fans division for the period 2025 to 2026 up to February 2026.
Orient Electric became aware that Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited, one of India's leading consumer electrical companies with over a century of presence in the market, was in the process of introducing a new range of ceiling fans under the name 'GRACE' Series. Upon examining the design of the GRACE fans, Orient Electric concluded that the product reproduced the dominant visual features of its registered AEON design, including the tapered blade geometry, the compact hub structure, the seamless blade-hub transition and the overall sculptural silhouette of the fan. Orient Electric alleged that this was a deliberate attempt by Crompton to take advantage of the goodwill and market reputation that had been built around the AEON series.
Orient Electric filed a civil suit along with an application for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the High Court of Delhi. The matter was first listed on March 30, 2026. On that date, counsel appearing for Crompton Greaves made a statement before the Court that the GRACE fans had already been launched on or about March 20, 2026 in retail outlets across at least four states in India, namely Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka and Gujarat, and this was also recorded in an affidavit filed by Crompton on March 31, 2026 along with geo-tagged photographs of retail outlets where the product was claimed to be displayed. On the basis of this statement suggesting a pre-filing launch, counsel for Orient Electric did not press for an immediate ad-interim injunction and instead agreed to provide Crompton an opportunity to file a written reply to the injunction application.
However, in subsequent affidavits and invoices filed by the defendant, a very different picture emerged. The documents showed that while Crompton's product had indeed been transported from the manufacturing facility to its warehouse from March 7, 2026 onwards, the actual retail sale of the GRACE fans commenced only on April 6, 2026, which was after the first date of hearing. The Court took serious note of this discrepancy, observing that the plaintiff had approached the Court before the actual date of launch and that the initial representation made by Crompton's counsel may have deprived the plaintiff of a timely ad-interim injunction order. Arguments in the interim injunction application were heard on May 6, 2026 and the order was reserved.
The Dispute: The core dispute between the parties operated on two distinct but interconnected levels. The first concerned whether Orient Electric's registered design was itself valid, meaning whether it truly possessed the novelty and originality required for registration under the Designs Act, 2000. The second concerned whether, assuming the design was valid, Crompton's GRACE fans infringed upon that registered design.
On the first question, Crompton argued vigorously that the AEON design lacked novelty and originality. Its case was that Orient Electric had simply picked up various design elements that had already appeared in prior published products and mosaiced them together, presenting the resulting combination as a novel design. Crompton presented a comparative chart identifying seven different prior arts, including the Atomberg Renesa Enzel fan published at least since May 26, 2021, the Atomberg Renesa+ published at least since May 9, 2023, the Crompton Air 360 with Design Number 304236 filed on April 2, 2018, the LUKER JVLuker USA Cosmos published at least since November 28, 2020, and designs registered by Luker Electric Technologies Private Limited bearing Design Numbers 381268-001 filed March 11, 2023, 386386-001 filed May 16, 2023 and 371396-001 filed September 24, 2022. Crompton compared specific individual elements of the AEON design with corresponding elements in these prior arts, element by element, to argue that nothing in the AEON design was truly novel.
On the second question, while Crompton focused almost entirely on attacking the validity of the AEON design registration, it notably did not directly contend in its reply that the GRACE fan design was dissimilar to the plaintiff's registered design. This omission was specifically highlighted by Orient Electric and later by the Court as a significant gap in Crompton's defense.
Orient Electric countered that the design must be assessed as a whole and not broken down into individual elements. It maintained that the visual combination of all the elements of the AEON design, taken together, created a distinctive and protectable aesthetic identity. It further argued that none of the prior arts relied upon by Crompton, when viewed in their entirety, produced the same overall visual impression as the AEON fan. Orient Electric also argued that the approach of picking individual elements from different prior art sources and combining them to challenge novelty the practice known as "mosaicing" was legally impermissible.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Court: Justice Gedela's reasoning is methodical, rooted in a careful application of established legal principles drawn from a body of authoritative precedent, and culminates in a nuanced finding that favors Orient Electric on multiple grounds.
The starting point of the Court's analysis was the landmark judgment of a coordinate bench of the Delhi High Court in TTK Prestige Ltd. versus KCM Appliances Pvt. Ltd., decided on April 13, 2023 in CS(COMM) 697/2022, court described this judgment as a locus classicus, a leading authority on how design disputes are to be approached under the Designs Act, 2000. The Court extracted at length the "takeaway" principles distilled in paragraph 38.13 of the TTK Prestige judgment, describing it as providing a comprehensive and authoritative framework for the resolution of design disputes.
From the TTK Prestige principles, court identified several that were directly applicable to the present case. The first was that the sole purpose of the Designs Act is to protect novel and original designs for the benefit of those who have expended time, research and labour in conceiving them. The second was that while ocular appeal is the definitive test, courts must not apply their own subjective standards. The third, and perhaps most critical for this case, was the principle that mosaicing of prior art designs is impermissible. This means that novelty cannot be attacked by combining individual elements drawn from different prior design publications. Any prior art cited as the basis for challenging the novelty of a registered design must be disclosed in a single prior document, or in multiple documents where one expressly references the other. The fourth was that registration of a design is itself a facial acknowledgment of the existence of novelty and originality, placing the burden of disproving novelty squarely on the party challenging the registration. The fifth was that in evaluating infringement, the comparison must be made through the lens of an instructed eye meaning the eye of a person who is aware of prior art and of the features that impart novelty to the registered design and if the features that impart novelty are found replicated in the defendant's product, infringement is established.
Applying these principles, Court examined Crompton's prior art challenge and found it legally untenable. The Court observed that Crompton had cited seven different prior arts, and its entire defense was built on comparing specific individual elements of the AEON design with corresponding individual elements from different prior art products. This was precisely the kind of mosaicing that the TTK Prestige judgment had declared impermissible. The Court then examined each of the cited prior arts and found that none of them, when viewed as a complete design applied to an article, produced the same overall visual impression as the AEON fan. Specifically, the Court noted that even the closest prior art, the Atomberg Renesa Enzel published since May 26, 2021, did not disclose the design of the bottom canopy, the shape of the bottom cover, or the shape of the bottom plate in the manner they appeared in the AEON design.
The Court also drew support from the Bombay High Court's judgment in Pidilite Industries Limited versus Astral Limited Formerly Known As Resinova Chemie Limited in Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 13638 of 2024, which had similarly held that it is not permissible to break down an article into its component parts and compare individual elements with parts of a competing design. The Court further relied on the principle drawn from the Selvel Industries case, extracted in the Pidilite judgment, which had clarified that the phrase "combination of known designs" in Section 4(c) of the Designs Act, which prohibits registration of such combinations, refers to a combination of known articles and not to parts or elements of known articles. This meant that even if individual components of a design had appeared in earlier products, their particular combination and arrangement in a novel way to produce a new overall visual impression was not prohibited and could constitute a registrable design.
Having rejected Crompton's novelty challenge, the Court proceeded to compare the two rival designs. In an unusual and instructive step, Justice Gedela had actually requested the parties to physically bring their assembled fan products before the Court for visual examination. This in-person examination formed an important part of the Court's assessment. After this examination, and after studying the comparative charts placed on record, the Court concluded that the overall visual impression of the two products was substantially similar. The blade design of both fans employed a variable wide type design. The curve at the motor end of the blade matched the bottom cover radius in both products. The fluidic curve and line at the blade tip appeared to be a deliberate design choice that had been replicated by Crompton in its GRACE fan. The longitudinal line and curve of the blade across its length was matching in both products. The shape of the bottom cover in both fans was characterised by a curved and fluidic form.
The Court did acknowledge, fairly and with a degree of candor toward the defendant, that the bottom canopy and upper canopy of the GRACE fan appeared somewhat different from those of the AEON fan specifically that Crompton's canopies were more dome-shaped while Orient Electric's canopy was somewhat like half an hourglass. However, the Court held that these were minor and peripheral differences in non-essential features and could not serve as a shield where the essential features of a design had been copied. This reflected the principle from TTK Prestige that imitation does not imply identity, and that copying of the novelty-imparting features is sufficient to constitute design piracy even if minor differences exist in other features.
The Court also noted the conspicuous omission in Crompton's defense the defendant had nowhere in its reply stated that its GRACE design was dissimilar to the plaintiff's registered design. The defense was entirely premised on attacking the validity of the registration, without actually engaging with the question of whether the two products looked similar. This omission, the Court held, further strengthened the prima facie case for the plaintiff.
On the question of granting an injunction despite the product having already been launched, the Court acknowledged that ordinarily it would be reluctant to grant injunctive relief post-launch. However, the Court found that the specific factual circumstances of this case made it just and appropriate to do so. The critical finding was that Crompton had initially represented on affidavit and through its counsel that the product had been launched on March 20, 2026 across multiple states. It was only subsequently revealed, through invoices and other documents, that actual retail sales had commenced only on April 6, 2026, after the first court date of March 30, 2026. The Court found that Orient Electric had in fact approached the Court before the actual date of retail launch and that it was the incorrect statement made by Crompton's counsel which had led the plaintiff to not press for an immediate interim injunction on the first hearing. The Court held that the plaintiff could not be prejudiced by the incorrect representation made by the defendant regarding the date of launch, and that this factor compelled the Court to protect the plaintiff's interests at this stage. The Court also found that the photographs filed by Crompton as evidence of retail launch merely showed the product at retail premises but did not establish an actual date of sale.
Final Decision of the Court: Court granted the interim injunction application filed by Orient Electric. By its order dated May 14, 2026, the Court restrained Crompton Greaves, along with all its business associates, partners, directors, officers, family members, servants, agents, dealers, distributors and franchisees, from manufacturing, marketing, selling — including on online platforms — or using the registered design bearing number 393299-001, or any other design identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's AEON Fan Series, including specifically the GRACE series of ceiling fans.
The Court further directed that there shall be no further sales of the infringing product from the date of the order, save for products already sold prior to the order. The defendant was additionally directed to maintain its complete records of sale and financial statements in respect of the infringing product from April 6, 2026 till the date of the order, and to disclose these records by way of an affidavit filed in a sealed cover within four weeks. The matter was listed for further hearing before the Court on July 17, 2026. The Court expressly clarified that its observations and conclusions in this order were confined to the adjudication of the interim injunction application and were not to be treated as any expression on the final merits of the underlying suit.
Points of Law Settled in the Case: This judgment makes several important contributions to the law of industrial design in India, reinforcing and extending the principles developed in earlier cases. The most significant point of law affirmed in this case is the absolute prohibition on mosaicing in design infringement and validity proceedings. The Court unequivocally confirmed that it is not permissible to challenge the novelty of a registered design by combining individual elements drawn from different prior art sources. Each prior art relied upon to challenge novelty must, when viewed as a whole, disclose a design that is identical or substantially similar to the registered design in all its essential features. Selecting one element from one prior art and another element from a different prior art and arguing that the combination renders the registered design non-novel is an impermissible approach. The second important point concerns the standard of visual comparison in design infringement cases. The Court confirmed that the correct standard is the "instructed eye" test the comparison must be made from the perspective of a person who is familiar with the prior art in the relevant field and is capable of discerning which features of the registered design are truly novel. Purely subjective impressions are insufficient. At the same time, the Court confirmed that the test is ultimately visual and ocular what matters is the overall visual impression created by the design as applied to the article, and not a technical or functional analysis. The third important point is that minor differences in non-essential features do not defeat a claim of design infringement. If the essential novelty-imparting features of a registered design have been replicated in the defendant's product, infringement is established even if the defendant has introduced minor variations in peripheral or secondary features. The fourth point concerns the circumstances in which post-launch injunctions may be granted. The Court confirmed that while courts would ordinarily be reluctant to grant injunctive relief after a product has been commercially launched, this reluctance can be overcome where it is shown that the plaintiff had approached the court before the actual date of launch and was misled by incorrect representations by the defendant regarding the launch date.The fifth and final point, flowing from the application of the Designs Act, is that registration of a design by the Controller General of Designs carries a presumption of novelty and originality. The burden of rebutting this presumption lies on the party challenging the registration, and that burden is a heavy one, requiring demonstration through a single prior document disclosing the entire design that the registered design lacks novelty.
Case Title: Orient Electric Limited Vs Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited
Date of Order: May 14, 2026
Case Number: CS(COMM) 331/2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:4264
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Hon'ble Judge: Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Suggested SEO Titles for Legal Journals
Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction in Ceiling Fan Design War: Orient Electric vs Crompton Greaves 2026
: Delhi High Court Reaffirms Key Principles
Design Piracy in the Ceiling Fan Industry: How Delhi High Court Decided the Orient Electric vs Crompton Greaves Battle
When Does Fan Design Become Infringement? Delhi High Court's Landmark Ruling in Orient Electric vs Crompton Greaves
Post-Launch Injunctions in Design Infringement Cases: Lessons from Orient Electric Ltd vs Crompton Greaves 2026
Registered Design Protection and the Instructed Eye Test: Delhi High Court's Analysis in Orient Electric vs Crompton
Industrial Design Novelty and the Anti-Mosaicing Rule: A Detailed Study of CS COMM 331 of 2026
Protecting Aesthetic Innovation: Delhi High Court on Design Registration Validity and Infringement Standards
SEO Tags
Design Infringement India, Designs Act 2000, Orient Electric Limited, Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals, Delhi High Court 2026, Interim Injunction Design Case, AEON Fan Series, GRACE Fan Series, Ceiling Fan Design Dispute, Industrial Design Protection India, Mosaicing Prior Art, Novelty Originality Designs Act, TTK Prestige Judgment, Instructed Eye Test Design, Design Registration India, IP Litigation Delhi High Court, Post Launch Injunction India, Section 22 Designs Act, Section 19 Designs Act, Section 4 Designs Act, Prior Art Design India, Visual Similarity Test, Registered Design Infringement, Consumer Electricals IP Dispute, CK Birla Group Legal News, Design Piracy India, IP Law India 2026, High Court Delhi IP, Design Validity Challenge, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor
Headnote
M/S. Orient Electric Limited v. Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited
CS(COMM) 331/2026 | 2026:DHC:4264 | High Court of Delhi | May 14, 2026 | Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Designs Act, 2000 — Sections 4(c), 19, 22 — Interim Injunction — Design Infringement — Mosaicing of Prior Art — Novelty and Originality — Post-Launch Injunction
The plaintiff, holder of registered design no. 393299-001 dated April 9, 2024 for its 'AEON' ceiling fan series, alleged infringement by the defendant's 'GRACE' series of ceiling fans. The defendant challenged the validity of the registration by comparing individual elements of the registered design with elements drawn from seven different prior art publications, arguing that the plaintiff had mosaiced these elements into a composite design lacking novelty. The Court held that mosaicing of prior art designs is impermissible and novelty cannot be challenged by combining individual elements from different prior publications; each prior art, when viewed as a composite whole, must disclose a design identical or substantially similar to the registered design in all its essential features. None of the seven prior arts cited by the defendant, when so viewed, produced the same overall visual impression as the plaintiff's registered design. On physical examination of the assembled rival products, the Court found unmistakable visual similarity in essential features including blade geometry, motor end curve, blade tip profile and bottom cover shape. The fact that the defendant had not denied similarity of designs in its reply was noted. Minor differences in canopy shape, being peripheral and non-essential, did not preclude a finding of prima facie infringement. Post-launch injunction granted on the ground that the plaintiff had approached the Court before actual retail launch and had been misled by incorrect representations by the defendant regarding the date of launch. Registration of a design by the Controller General constitutes facial satisfaction of novelty and originality, placing the burden of rebuttal on the challenging party. Interim injunction granted restraining the defendant from manufacturing, marketing and selling the infringing design.
