Delhi High Court restrains Panasonic from selling fans "deceptively similar" to Havells

The Delhi High Court recently restrained major Japanese multinational conglomerate, Panasonic, from manufacturing, marketing and selling ceiling fans belonging to its 'Venice Prime' series of fans as it was found to be deceptively similar to those made by Indian electrical equipment company, Havells under its 'Enticer Art-NS Stone' series [Havells India Ltd. vs. Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt. Ltd]. .Single-judge Justice Jyoti Singh opined that Havells had successfully made out a prima facie case for the grant of an interim injunction as it found that the similarity between the designs of the fans by the two companies was evident."It is prima facie evident from a mere visual comparison that every attempt has been made by Defendant No.1 to come as close as possible to Plaintiff’s Fans.The impugned product has a same shape and configuration, ornamentation on the blade, body ring on bottom cover, layout and placement of the ornamentation. It is relevant to note that not only has the idea of using marble on the blades of the fan has been copied, but even the shape in which it is cut, the size and the metallic border as well as its placement and layout have been substantially copied by Defendant No.1," the Court observed..The Court issued the judgment on a plea by moved by Havells seeking an interim injunction against Panasonic on grounds of unauthorized imitation, identical reproduction and piracy of their registered design which would constitute as an infringement under Section 22 of The Designs Act, 2000..The case of the plaintiff, Havells, was that it is a market leader and a registered design owner of its various ceiling fans,including its flagship 'Enticer' range with it's some unique, distinct and protected designs.According to Havells, the Unique Selling Point (USP) of this new series was the artistic work in the floral motif patterns and the unique colour scheme on the trims.It was submitted that Havells had copyrighted the same and had been extremely vigilant in protecting its statutory and common law rights vested in the design, get-up, layout and patterns from misuse by third parties and had taken appropriate legal actions from time to time.It was argued that on account of the substantial copy by Panasonic, it was likely that their goods could be passed off as those of Havells, diluting the distinctive character of Havells and its goodwill and reputation in trade circles and amongst consumers..The defendant, Panasonic, refuted the claims and contended that it has been in the electrical business for over five decades and that its contentious 'VENICE PRIME' range was inspired not from Havells' design but from its earlier brand, 'CAPTOR', launched in 2020.Counsel for Panasonic tried to bring out the dissimilarities between the two products, by comparing the intersecting golden lines on the marble pattern of the Havells fans with the motifs and colours on their own fans.It was alleged that Havells was guilty of suppression of material facts. It was, therefore, urged that the plaintiff was not entitled to the equitable relief of interim injunction..The Court concurred with the plaintiff and found that there was prima facie evidence of similarities between the designs."comparing the design on the impugned products with the Plaintiff’s Design 2020, it is established that Defendant No.1 has slavishly copied and imitated the Plaintiff’s design, thereby satisfying the tests laid down in the judgments aforementioned and the provisions of Section 22 (1) of the Act", the Court said. In such a case, the Court was of the opinion that if interim injunction is not granted, irreparable loss shall be caused to Havells, as Panasonic seems to be infringing the design of Havells and passing off its goods as those of the plaintiff's, thereby deceiving the public..Havells India was represented by Senior Advocate Darpan Wadhwa along with advocates Sudeep Chatterjee, Kunal Vats, Rohan Swarup of Singh & Singh Law Firm LLP as well as advocate Neelakshi Baduria.Panasonic was represented by Senior Advocate Chander M Lall along with advocates Afzal B Khan, Samik Mukherjee, Vishal Nagpal and Sidhant Pandey..[Read Order].Delhi High Court restrains Joy from selling, advertising cosmetic products deceptively similar to Nivea