NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY, BENGALURU

MASTER OF FASHION MANAGEMENT

BATCH 2023-2025

Professional Practices Ethics and Values

Exercise: 5

Submitted by:

Naman Somani (MFM/23/76)

Pavi Shetty (MFM/23/73)

Saumya Udayan (MFM/23/75

Snigdha Ranjan(MFM/23/187)

Tushita Mitra (MFM/23/307)

Vidhi Agrawal (MFM/23/63)

Vinal Sharma (MFM/23/54)

Background:

In 2012, Whirlpool accused Videocon of copying the design of its washing machine. Whirlpool
argued that Videocon's product had the same design, features, shape, colors, and configuration as
Whirlpool's, which had been registered for over a decade. Videocon defended itself, claiming that
consumers buy washing machines based on branding rather than appearance.

Whirlpool holds design registrations (Nos. 223833 and 223835) valid for ten years from July 15,
2009, with a possible 5-year extension. In June 2012, Whirlpool discovered Videocon's "Videocon
Pebble" washing machine, which they believed closely resembled their own product. Whirlpool
asserted that a simple observation of Videocon's product showed it to be a clear copy, with almost
identical shape and configuration. Videocon's washing machine replicated Whirlpool's distinctive
circular wash area, compact right-aligned control panel, and unique rectangular drying area.

Fig 1.1 Whirlpool’s washing machine

Fig 1.2 Videocon’s washing machine

Issue:

The Issue of this case centres around a dispute over alleged design infringement. Whirlpool of India
Ltd. accused Videocon Industries Ltd. of replicating the design of their washing machines, which was
already patented. The patent had a validity of 10 years with a scope of 5 years of extension. Whirlpool
claimed that Videocon's "Videocon Pebble" washing machine. closely resembled their registered
designs. They argued that Videocon's design infringed upon their intellectual property rights.

Videocon challenged the claim by stating that consumers prioritize brand reputation over product
design when making purchasing decisions. They argued that imitation or duplication was unlikely as a
result. The dispute centred on the interpretation of the Designs Act 2000, which defines design
infringement solely based on visual similarities perceived by the eye. Whirlpool asserted that
Videocon's washing machine closely resembled their registered design, citing similarities such as the
circular washing compartment and the compact control panel.

Facts:

Whirlpool of India Ltd initiated legal proceedings against Videocon Industries Ltd, alleging that a
washing machine produced by Videocon bore an uncanny resemblance to Whirlpool’s own product,
which held registered designs. Videocon countered these accusations by arguing that consumers
placed greater emphasis on brand recognition rather than visual design when making purchasing
decisions. Notably, Whirlpool had secured two design registrations dating back to July 15, 2009, with
the potential for extension by another five years. Subsequent to the discovery of Videocon's washing
machine, Whirlpool identified numerous striking similarities in design features between the two
products. Throughout the legal proceedings, an exhaustive comparison revealed significant physical
resemblances between both washing machines, particularly concerning specific design elements. In
evaluating the case, the court employed the “Judging by the Eye” test, scrutinising the machines
closely to ascertain their distinctiveness.

Eventually, the trial judge ruled in favour of Whirlpool, affirming the uniqueness of its design.
Moreover, Whirlpool pursued legal recourse against Videocon for alleged attempts to mislead
consumers and tarnish Whirlpool's brand reputation.

Judgement:

While the case was going on, The Court decided that although Videocon could not knowingly mislead
the user, it might have created an unsatisfactory environment for the plaintiff (Whirlpool in this case)
and as a result, Videocon is liable for the disappearance of the manufactured product.
These clauses seem pertinent to the design processes and cannot be a justifiable reaction to a minor
enhancement of the previously known and registered design. The Mumbai High Court while closing
the case concluded that based on ‘judging by the eye test’ devices share distinctive forms and are
clearly identified, the use of design has been done to an extent that the design designs made by
Whirlpool have become fraudulent and therefore, Videocon can no longer market and manufacture its
product called the ‘Videocon-pebble-washing machine.’ Therefore, Videocon had to stop
commercialising its product.

Learning:

A significant insight on the value of industrial design protection as a type of intellectual property
rights may be gained from the case study of Whirlpool of India v. Videocon Industries. This case
study highlights the essential function that industrial design protection plays in preserving a
competitive advantage in the marketplace. Businesses can protect their creative works and stop others
from using their intellectual property for profit by registering their designs. Encouraging creativity,
innovation, and fair competition in the sector are all reliant on this protection. The case study also
emphasises the challenges involved in building a case for design infringement and the significance of
visual similarities and distinguishing characteristics. It underlines how important it is for businesses to
keep a close eye on their designs, spot possible infringements, and pursue legal action to protect their
intellectual property.
In terms of intellectual property rights, the case study highlights the need for industrial design
protection overall. It reminds businesses of the legal options at their fingertips to protect their
intellectual property, honour their legal rights, and keep a competitive edge in the marketplace.
Businesses may protect their intellectual property, encourage innovation, and forge a solid market
position by understanding and using industrial design protection.