On July 31 2025, the High Court of Bombay ruled in a design infringement and passing-off suit brought by Travel Blue Products India Private Limited and Travel Blue Limited (the Plaintiffs) against Miniso Life Style Private Limited and Miniso Hong Kong Limited (the Defendants).
The Plaintiffs had designed the Travel Blue Tranquility Neck Pillow in 2015 and secured design registrations across multiple jurisdictions, including India, with novelty stated to reside in the shape and configuration of the “neck pillow with pocket”. The design registration expressly clarified that the pocket was a mechanical feature and no design rights were claimed in it.
In August 2024, the Plaintiffs discovered the Defendants’ travel neck pillow, launched in 2022, which they alleged was a substantial imitation of their registered design. The Plaintiffs contended that the Defendants had also replicated the distinctive colour palette – grey, blue, purple, and pink – in which the Plaintiffs’ product was marketed.
The Defendants countered that similar neck pillow designs pre-dated the Plaintiffs’ registration, rendering it unoriginal. They pointed out differences in contours and length, and the absence of the Plaintiffs’ pocket feature, while also arguing that many aspects of the Plaintiffs’ pillow – such as foldability, ease of storage, and an accompanying pouch – were functional features, not protectable design elements. Relying on the Plaintiffs’ promotional material highlighting functionality, they further sought cancellation of the design registration. They also emphasised that their packaging bore their own trademark and that no monopoly could be claimed over commonly used colours.
However, the High Court of Bombay found that the Defendants’ arguments ran contrary to their pleadings. The shape and configuration of the Plaintiffs’ product had not been termed functional; rather, the pleadings accepted that the Plaintiffs’ design possessed visual appeal and that the visual appeal of the Defendants’ neck pillow was distinct. Thus, prima facie, the court held that the Defendants could not, at the stage of arguments, aver that the Plaintiffs’ design was non-registrable on the ground of functionality.
Cancellation of design
Even so, the court delved into the issue of cancellation. It noted that the Defendants relied on prior art registrations, which were primarily international registrations. Under Section 19(1)(a) of the Designs Act, 2000, cancellation may be sought only if a design has been previously registered in India – mere international registration is insufficient.
Furthermore, under Section 19(1)(b), a case for cancellation may be made out if a design has been published in India or in any other country before the registration date. Such prior publication must be evidenced in a brochure, book, or journal clearly depicting the design.
On review, the court noticed that only one national registration, dated February 11 2011, was produced, but this design was found to be neither visually nor structurally similar to the Plaintiffs’ registered design. Consequently, the Defendants’ reliance on international registrations, without specific pleadings or supporting material, was held insufficient to establish a prima facie case for cancellation under Section 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b).
With regard to cancellation basis functionality, it was explained that under the Designs Act, 2000, registration is granted where the shape, configuration, pattern or ornament of an article appeals to and can be judged solely by the eye. The statute protects the ornamental and visual aspects of a product, not its purely functional features. That said, the statutory definition does not require the design to be purely aesthetic and devoid of functionality.
In practice, designs often overlap function and aesthetics. A design that has eye appeal will be excluded from registration only if its every feature is dictated solely by function. This is the case where there are limited ways to achieve a particular function. However, consider a textured knife handle that improves grip. This may still qualify for protection if other visually distinct patterns could serve the same purpose.
The law thus envisages a middle path to be navigated on the basis of the facts. Where the functional features create a different visual effect regarding the overall look of the finished article, such a design is eligible for protection.
Applying this well-settled test of functionality, the court held that, prima facie, the Plaintiffs’ design was registrable under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000. The shape and configuration of the Tranquility Neck Pillow were found to possess aesthetic appeal and the comparative illustrations produced in Exhibit C demonstrated that the functional purpose of supporting the neck during travel could be achieved through a variety of forms.
The court further observed that customer reviews emphasising the pillow’s functional advantages were, by themselves, insufficient to render the design purely functional. While the pleadings in the plaint blurred the line between functionality and aesthetics, a holistic reading revealed sufficient averments describing the product as aesthetic in nature. Features such as easy storage, foldability, and memory foam were rightly characterised as functional attributes not eligible for design protection.
Lastly, the Defendants’ contention regarding the pocket feature – that the registered design depicted a non-detachable pocket, while the Plaintiffs’ commercial product used a removable pocket and the Defendants’ product had none – was held, prima facie, insufficient to negate infringement. The protectable design element lay in the overall shape and configuration of the pillow featuring elevated sides and dipping curves in a unique pattern.
After reviewing the rival designs, comparative tables, and third-party references, the court observed that exact replication is not required for determining infringement, and the test lies in the eye of an average consumer. On this basis, it found the Defendants’ product to be an obvious imitation of the Plaintiffs’ registered design.
Dual claims
On passing off, the court noted the Plaintiffs’ Indian and foreign registrations as well as substantial sales figures and promotional expenditure established goodwill and reputation in the design. Given the striking similarity and the Plaintiffs’ earlier market presence, the Defendants were found to have acted in bad faith. Their product was held likely to cause consumer confusion and harm the Plaintiffs’ business.
Accordingly, the court held that the Plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case of design infringement and passing off. The Defendants were restrained from further infringing or passing off, and directed to take down all online listings of the impugned products from their website, e-commerce platforms, and social media until final disposal of the suit.
By upholding claims of design infringement and passing off, the High Court of Bombay signalled its recognition that with sustained use, the subject matter of design protection can develop a source-identifying function. This is a proposition that the High Court of Delhi has found some hesitation in accepting unequivocally, though its Division Bench decision in Crocs Inc. USA v Bata India and others on July 1 2025 upheld the viability of passing-off claims where the subject matter was also covered by a design registration.
