Design Wars in Court: Travel Blue v. Miniso, A Win for Visual Identity

Introduction

In the ever-growing market of travel accessories, standing out is everything. But what happens when one brand feels that its distinct design is being copied, not just functionally but visually down to the shape and colour? The Bombay High Court recently addressed this in the case of Travel Blue Products India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Miniso Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.^[1], and the verdict offers useful takeaways for IP practitioners and brands alike.”

At the heart of the dispute: a neck pillow.

But not just any neck pillow Travel Blue’s Tranquility Pillow, protected under a registered design in India and internationally. Miniso, the popular Japanese Chinese lifestyle brand, was accused of selling a deceptively similar product. The High Court's ruling touches on everything from design infringement and aesthetic value to passing off and the fine line between function and form.”

Background and Facts

Travel Blue, the Plaintiff, a global brand in travel accessories, launched its Tranquility Neck Pillow back in 2015, securing design registrations in India and abroad. Their design, they claimed, was unique with specific contours, elevated sides, and a distinct configuration that wasn’t just functional but aesthetically pleasing.”

In 2024, the company discovered that the Defendant was selling a similar neck pillow, both in-store and online. They claimed that not only did the shape and structure mimic their design, but the colour palette (grey, blue, purple, and pink) was also nearly identical.

”

This wasn't just coincidence, argued the Plaintiff; this was piracy and passing off. The Plaintiffs had clocked in impressive sales and marketing spends and they feared that such replication would damage their goodwill and consumer recognition.”

The Defendant  on the other hand, denied the allegations. They argued that the design was dictated by function, that several such products existed prior to the Plaintiff’s’ and that their version was based on consumer feedback not copying. They also stressed the absence of the "pocket" element in their product, something present in Travel Blue’s original design registration. The Defendants also contended that similarities in shape were inevitable in such utilitarian items and that there was no intent to mislead consumers, especially given their distinct packaging and branding.”

Court’s Reasoning & Findings\

The Bombay High Court ruled in favour of the Plaintiffs, Travel Blue, and granted an interim injunction against the Defendants, Miniso Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. In doing so, the Court concluded that the Plaintiffs had made out a strong prima facie case of design infringement and passing off, warranting immediate protection.

”

The Court restrained Miniso from manufacturing, marketing, or selling the infringing neck pillow that was found to bear a deceptive resemblance to Travel Blue’s registered design. Further, Miniso was directed to remove all online listings of the impugned product from e-commerce and social media platforms. The Court observed that Travel Blue had clearly invested in building a recognisable brand identity around the Tranquility Pillow, a product that had gained considerable market presence, promotional backing, and consumer goodwill. On this basis, the balance of convenience lay with the Plaintiffs, and the likelihood of irreparable harm justified the interim relief.”

Addressing the core dispute whether the design in question was entitled to protection under the Designs Act, 2000 the Court reaffirmed a foundational principle in design law: a product’s functional features do not automatically disqualify its design from registration and enforcement. So long as the design embodies aesthetic qualities that appeal to the eye, and there are multiple alternative ways to achieve the same function, the design is protectable. The Court relied on the precedent established in Whirlpool v. Videocon^[2], reiterating the continued applicability of the “only option test”. In the present case, the Defendants failed to establish that the particular form used by Travel Blue was the only means of fulfilling the pillow’s ergonomic function. Therefore, the design could not be dismissed as purely functional.”

Upon reviewing the physical products presented in Court, the Court found the visual similarity between the rival pillows to be unmistakable stating that it was “nigh impossible to differentiate” the two. The shape, curves, and even the colour palette were nearly identical. Interestingly, the Defendants’ own pleadings indirectly acknowledged the aesthetic distinctiveness of the Plaintiffs’ design, reinforcing the Court’s finding that visual appeal not merely function was at the heart of the design’s registrability.”

On the issue of novelty, the Court rejected Miniso’s claim that the design lacked originality due to the existence of prior art. Although the Defendants submitted international design registrations and screenshots from online marketplaces, the Court held that this material fell short of proving prior publication or registration in India which is a legal requirement for cancellation under Section 19 of the Designs Act. Moreover, the Court clarified that the presence of a “pocket” on the pillow cited by Miniso as a key differentiator was not the sole basis of novelty. Instead, the registration expressly stated that the shape and configuration of the neck pillow as a whole formed the design’s distinctive character.”

Finally, the Court also upheld the Plaintiffs’ claim of passing off. Travel Blue had been marketing the Tranquility Pillow in India since 2016 and had recorded significant sales and brand visibility across both domestic and international markets. Given that neck pillows are often sold unpackaged and displayed without branding, the Court noted that the visual similarity alone was likely to cause confusion in the minds of consumers. This risk of deception, especially when combined with Travel Blue’s prior market presence, satisfied the elements of passing off namely, misrepresentation, likelihood of confusion, and damage to goodwill.”

Taken together, the Court’s reasoning underscored the importance of protecting the visual identity of products under design law. It affirmed that functional utility does not negate aesthetic distinctiveness and that lookalike products even when sold under a different brand can trigger both design infringement and passing off liability. The interim injunction thus served to safeguard not just statutory rights in a registered design, but also the brand reputation that the Plaintiffs had built around it.”

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court’s decision in this case underscores the growing significance of design rights in today’s consumer-driven markets, where product appearance can make or break a brand. By granting interim relief, the Court reaffirmed that aesthetic originality deserves protection, even when a product has a functional component so long as the design isn’t dictated solely by that function.

This ruling sends a strong message to both domestic and international brands operating in India: copying the look and feel of a product, even without using the same name or logo, can amount to infringement and passing off. It reinforces that design law is not just a formality, it's a strategic legal shield that can preserve your market identity, brand value, and customer trust.

The Court also clarified that visual deception doesn’t require exact duplication. Even "obvious imitation" if it causes consumer confusion is enough to trigger protection under the Designs Act. Importantly, the judgment resisted attempts to blur the line between form and function, emphasizing that a product’s utility does not negate its aesthetic distinctiveness.”

Lawanya Khanna

Associate

lawanya.khanna@iprattorneys.com

References:

[1] 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2792.

[2] 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 565