Whirlpool of India Ltd. vs Videocon Industries Ltd.
Notice of Motion No. 2269 of 2012
Date of judgment: 27-05-2014
In this law post, you will learn about the facts, issues, arguments, and judgment of Whirlpool of India Ltd. vs Videocon Industries Ltd.
Facts of the Case
Whirlpool of India Ltd. and Videocon Industries Ltd. are prominent home appliance industry players. M/s Whirlpool of India Ltd (plaintiff) registered a design for the shape and configuration of its washing machines, featuring a distinctive square shape on one side and a rounded shape on the other. The plaintiff alleged that M/s Videocon Industries Ltd (defendant) began manufacturing and marketing washing machines with a design highly similar to the plaintiff’s registered design, infringing on their design rights under the Design Act, 2000.
The plaintiff claimed that the defendant deliberately copied their design to capitalise on its popularity. The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s design was not original, as similar designs had been in the market for over 50 years. They also contended that their washing machine was distinct, with differences in ornamentation, colour, and knob placement.
The Trial Court granted an injunction, finding the defendant’s washing machine similar to the plaintiff’s registered design. The defendant filed an appeal against the decision of trial court, arguing that the plaintiff’s design lacked novelty and was merely a combination of known designs and that their washing machine was sufficiently distinct.
Issues Raised in the case
There were three significant issues raised in this case:
- Whether the defendant’s washing machine infringes on the plaintiff’s registered design.
- Whether the plaintiff’s design is original and entitled to protection.
- Whether the defendant’s actions constitute passing off.
Arguments Given by the Plaintiff
1. The plaintiff contended that the defendant’s washing machines bear a striking resemblance to their registered design. They argued that the similarities were not coincidental and that the defendant deliberately copied their design to make profits out of the popularity of the plaintiff’s registered design. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant’s actions constituted an infringement of their intellectual property right.
2. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged passing off, asserting that the defendant’s marketing of washing machines with a design highly similar to theirs aims to deceive consumers into believing they are purchasing the plaintiff’s products. They argued that this misrepresentation harms their brand and its reputation, justifying legal action.
Arguments Given by the Defendant
1. The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s registered design lacks novelty and originality. They again contended the argument given in trial court regarding the lack of uniqueness of the plaintiff’s design as it was used by many brands for decades due to its general nature and that the plaintiff’s design is merely a combination of known shapes. The defendant asserted that the plaintiff’s registration is only for size and shape and does not cover other aspects such as pattern, ornamentation, or colours.
2. The defendant asserted that their washing machine is sufficiently distinct from the plaintiff’s registered design. They argued that differences in ornamentation, colour, and placement of operational knobs differentiate their product from the plaintiff’s. The defendant contended that their washing machine does not infringe on the plaintiff’s design, as it is distinctly different when judged solely by the eye.
Judgment
The court ruled in favour of Whirlpool, finding that Videocon’s washing machine design imitated Whirlpool’s registered design. Consequently, Videocon was restrained from manufacturing and marketing its washing machines. The court found the defendant’s washing machine similar to the plaintiff’s registered design, particularly noting the distinctive boat-shaped appearance.
The court held that the mere addition of ornamentation or changes in colour or knob placement did not sufficiently differentiate the defendant’s product. The test of judging solely by the eye demonstrated the similarity between the two machines, establishing a case of infringement.
Additionally, the court ruled that the plaintiff’s design, while not relating to functionality, had distinct visual appeal and value, justifying protection. As for passing off, the Court held that the similarity between the machines constituted a misrepresentation, supporting the plaintiff’s claim.
Conclusion
The judgment rendered by the Bombay High Court restrained Videocon from producing and marketing its washing machines, thereby upholding the validity of Whirlpool’s registered design.
Furthermore, the court clarified that infringement actions could be pursued against registered design owners. This case underscores the significance of safeguarding registered designs and preventing unauthorised imitation in the marketplace, thereby protecting the intellectual property rights of design owners.
- What Is Misappropriation of Trade Secrets and Its Defences? - 15th May 2024
- 7 Important Types of Mediation Briefly Defined - 14th May 2024
- Whirlpool India vs Videocon Industries – Case Explained - 13th May 2024
