• About
  • Contcat Us
Sunday, September 24, 2023
Justice Bench
No Result
View All Result
  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Online Internship
  • Forums
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Online Internship
  • Forums
No Result
View All Result
justice bench
No Result
View All Result
Home News

Panasonic is banned from selling fans that are “deceptively similar” to Havells, rules Delhi High Court

By Justuce Bench by By Justuce Bench
June 3, 2022
in News
Reading Time: 4 mins read
0
0
Panasonic is banned from selling fans that are "deceptively similar" to Havells, rules Delhi High Court.

Panasonic is banned from selling fans that are "deceptively similar" to Havells, rules Delhi High Court.

0
SHARES
65
VIEWS

The Delhi High Court Bench comprising Single-judge Justice Jyoti Singh in the case of Havells India Ltd. vs. Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt. Ltd barred Panasonic from manufacturing, marketing, and selling ceiling fans from its ‘Venice Prime’ series after it was discovered to be deceptively similar to those manufactured by Indian electrical equipment business Havells under its ‘Enticer Art-NS Stone’ line.

The court opined that Havells had established a prima facie case for the issue of an interim injunction since the similarities between the designs of the two businesses’ fans were obvious.

“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

Havells had requested an interim injunction against Panasonic on the basis of unauthorised copying, identical replication, and piracy of their registered design, which would be considered an infringement under Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000.

READ ALSO

Chhota Rajan Files suit in Bombay HC Against Netflix Series Scoop Demands ₹1 as Damages for Violation of Personality Rights

Kerala High Court Upholds Right of Accused to Surrender, Rejects Refusal of Permission by Courts with Appropriate Jurisdiction

Havells argued that it is a market leader and registered design owner of its different ceiling fans, including its flagship ‘Enticer’ range, which features several unique, distinct, and protected designs.

The artistic work in the floral motif patterns and the unique colour scheme on the trims, according to Havells, were the new series’ Unique Selling Points (USPs).

Havells had copyrighted the design and had been exceedingly vigilant in preserving its statutory and common law rights inherent in the design, get-up, layout, and patterns against exploitation by third parties, taking necessary legal action from time to time, according to the submission.

It was stated that, as a result of Panasonic’s considerable copy, their items could be mistaken for Havells’, eroding Havells’ distinctive character as well as its goodwill and reputation in trade circles and among consumers.

Panasonic, the defendant, denied the allegations, claiming that it has been in the electrical business for more than five decades and that its disputed ‘VENICE PRIME’ range was influenced by its older brand, ‘CAPTOR,’ which debuted in 2020, rather than Havells’ design.

Panasonic’s advocate compared the intersecting golden lines on the marble design of the Havells fans to the patterns and colours on their own fans to highlight the differences between the two products.

Havells was accused of withholding important facts from the jury. As a result, it was argued that the plaintiff was not entitled to equitable remedy in the form of an interim injunction.

The Court agreed with the plaintiff and determined that there was prima facie evidence of design similarities.

“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“,

Thre Court Said

In such a scenario, the Court believes that if an interim injunction is not issued, Havells will suffer irreparable harm, as Panasonic appears to be infringing on Havells’ design and passing off its goods as the plaintiff’s, fooling the public.

Havells India was represented by Senior Advocate Darpan Wadhwa, as well as Singh & Singh Law Firm LLP’s Sudeep Chatterjee, Kunal Vats, Rohan Swarup, and advocate Neelakshi Baduria.

Senior Advocate Chander M Lall, together with counsel Afzal B Khan, Samik Mukherjee, Vishal Nagpal, and Sidhant Pandey, represented Panasonic.

Read Judgment

Havells_v_Panasonic
Tags: deceptiondelhi high courtDesigns Act 2000HavellsIPRJustice Jyoti SinghPanasonic
ShareTweetSendShare

Related Posts

Chhota Rajan Files Lawsuit in Bombay High Court Against Netflix Series 'Scoop,' Demands ₹1 as Damages for Violation of Personality Rights
News

Chhota Rajan Files suit in Bombay HC Against Netflix Series Scoop Demands ₹1 as Damages for Violation of Personality Rights

June 1, 2023
Kerala High Court Upholds Right of Accused to Surrender, Rejects Refusal of Permission by Courts with Appropriate Jurisdiction
News

Kerala High Court Upholds Right of Accused to Surrender, Rejects Refusal of Permission by Courts with Appropriate Jurisdiction

June 1, 2023
The Telangana High Court’s judgment restricting CBI’s questioning of YS Avinash Reddy is overturned by the Supreme Court.
News

The Telangana High Court’s judgment restricting CBI’s questioning of YS Avinash Reddy is overturned by the Supreme Court.

April 24, 2023
calcutta hc
News

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that any form of penetration, even if it is minimal, during forced anal sex is considered an offense under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

February 24, 2023
Bengaluru court has banned the spread of defamatory content about IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri in a lawsuit against Roopa Moudgil and the media
News

Bengaluru court has banned the spread of defamatory content about IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri in a lawsuit against Roopa Moudgil and the media

February 24, 2023
pocso act
News

SC – Touching a finger to a vagina does not constitute “insertion” for the purposes of attracting charges of penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act.

February 23, 2023
google news
google news

POPULAR NEWS

Justices DY Chandrachud, AS Bopanna, and Bela M. Trivedi,

Execution of Document not to be considered based on Admission of Sign on Document Rules Supreme Court

May 12, 2022
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADVOCATE AND LAWYER

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ADVOCATE AND A LAWYER?

June 4, 2022
La Milano Pizzeria restrained  from representing previous association with La Pino'z - know more

La Milano Pizzeria restrained  from representing previous association with La Pino’z – know more

May 20, 2022
Why does Sequoia Capital terminate connections with Sandeep Kapoors Algo Legal? threats of ED searches, arm-twisting, and more

Why does Sequoia Capital terminate connections with Sandeep Kapoors Algo Legal? threats of ED searches, arm-twisting, and more

June 6, 2022
Right to Promotion is a Fundamental Right Not the Right to Promotion

Right to Consider to Promotion is a Fundamental Right But Not the Right to Promotion

May 13, 2022

Tags

advocate Algo Legal Allahabad HC Allahabad High Court Anil Deshmukh anticipatory bail Appointment of Judges bail Bombay high court calcutta high court Central Bureau of Investigation central government cji Collegium Collegium Recommendations defamation delhi high court divorce Enforcement Directorate gauhati high court Gujarat High court Gyanvapi Mosque high court judges IPR Judicial Appointments justice bench karnataka high court kerala high court latest judgements law ministry legal news madras high court murder patna high court pil pocso act Rouse Avenue Court Sequoia Capital study material supreme court Supreme Court Collegium supreme court of india UAPA Union Law Ministry varanasi court

important sections in contact while drafting contact

by By Justuce Bench
June 3, 2023
0
Analysis of Contract Law, Social Norms, and Inter-Firm Cooperation
Articles

In contract law, there are several important sections that govern the rights, obligations, and enforcement of contracts. While the specific...

Read more

Eight types of contract laws

by By Justuce Bench
June 3, 2023
0
Eight types of contract laws
Articles

Contract law is the legal field responsible for governing and enforcing binding agreements. Contracts play a vital role in holding...

Read more

Analysis of Contract Law, Social Norms, and Inter-Firm Cooperation

by By Justuce Bench
June 2, 2023
0
Analysis of Contract Law, Social Norms, and Inter-Firm Cooperation
Articles

We frequently engage in numerous agreements in our daily lives, ranging from buying vegetables at the market to installing and...

Read more

An overview of the process of rescinding contracts

by By Justuce Bench
June 2, 2023
0
rescission of contact
Articles

The term "rescission" originates from the Latin word 'rescindere', meaning to cut or tear open. It refers to the act...

Read more

About

Justice Bench is one of the fastest growing news legal portal in India, for latest Latest Legal News india, Supreme Court judgement updates, High Courts Judgments updates,Law Firms News in india, Law School News, Latest Legal News india visit us.

Follow us

google news
google news

Recent Posts

  • important sections in contact while drafting contact

Popular News

  • DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADVOCATE AND LAWYER

    WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ADVOCATE AND A LAWYER?

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • The Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association advises junior lawyers and legal interns to follow the dress code and keep their demeanour

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • La Milano Pizzeria restrained  from representing previous association with La Pino’z – know more

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0

© 2022 JusticeBench  |  Privacy Policy  | Terms of Use

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Online Internship
  • Forums

© 2022 JusticeBench  |  Privacy Policy  | Terms of Use

Welcome Back!

Sign In with Google
OR

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Sign Up with Google
OR

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In