• About
  • Contcat Us
Monday, January 30, 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
60
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

The Supreme Court Collegium recommends advocate Neela Gokhale as judge of the Bombay High Court

The Supreme Court Collegium recommends the appointment of judges to the Gauhati and Manipur High Courts

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

Bombay high court
News

The Supreme Court Collegium recommends advocate Neela Gokhale as judge of the Bombay High Court

January 11, 2023
The Supreme Court Collegium recommends the appointment of judges to the Gauhati and Manipur High Courts
News

The Supreme Court Collegium recommends the appointment of judges to the Gauhati and Manipur High Courts

January 11, 2023
Supreme Court Collegium reiterates Nagendra Ramachandra Naik’s appointment as a Karnataka High Court judge for the third time.
News

Supreme Court Collegium reiterates Nagendra Ramachandra Naik’s appointment as a Karnataka High Court judge for the third time.

January 11, 2023
judges appointment to Andhra Pradesh and Karanataka High court
News

Collegium proposes the appointment of two judicial officers as judges of the high courts of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka.

January 11, 2023
The Uttarakhand High Court's order to the CBI to investigate former CM Trivendra Rawat was quashed by the Supreme Court.
News

The Uttarakhand High Court’s order to the CBI to investigate former CM Trivendra Rawat was quashed by the Supreme Court.

January 5, 2023
Madras-HC-uapa
News

Can the blind guide the blind? The Madras High Court orders the TN Judicial Academy to provide judges with UAPA and remand training.

December 30, 2022
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
jug jugg jeeyo

Copyright infringement | Jugjugg Jeeyo movie stay refused by Ranchi court

June 25, 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 government cji Collegium Collegium Recommendations defamation delhi high court divorce Enforcement Directorate Gujarat High court Gyanvapi Mosque high court judges IPR Judicial Appointments justice bench karnataka high court kerala high court latest judgements legal news madras high court murder Nawab Malik patna high court pil pocso act public interest litigation Rouse Avenue Court Sequoia Capital study material supreme court Supreme Court Collegium supreme court of india UAPA Union Law Ministry Uttar Pradesh varanasi court

The Supreme Court Collegium recommends advocate Neela Gokhale as judge of the Bombay High Court

by By Justuce Bench
January 11, 2023
0
Bombay high court
News

Advocate Neela Gokhale was today recommended for promotion as judge of the Bombay High Court by the Supreme Court Collegium.

Read more

The Supreme Court Collegium recommends the appointment of judges to the Gauhati and Manipur High Courts

by By Justuce Bench
January 11, 2023
0
The Supreme Court Collegium recommends the appointment of judges to the Gauhati and Manipur High Courts
News

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court Collegium proposed the nomination of judges to the Gauhati and Manipur High Courts.

Read more

Supreme Court Collegium reiterates Nagendra Ramachandra Naik’s appointment as a Karnataka High Court judge for the third time.

by By Justuce Bench
January 11, 2023
0
Supreme Court Collegium reiterates Nagendra Ramachandra Naik’s appointment as a Karnataka High Court judge for the third time.
News

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court Collegium decided to confirm the appointment of attorney Nagendra Ramachandra Naik as a Karnataka High...

Read more

Collegium proposes the appointment of two judicial officers as judges of the high courts of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka.

by By Justuce Bench
January 11, 2023
0
judges appointment to Andhra Pradesh and Karanataka High court
News

Tuesday, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended that two judicial officers be appointed as judges of the Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka...

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

  • The Supreme Court Collegium recommends advocate Neela Gokhale as judge of the Bombay High Court

Popular News

  • DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADVOCATE AND LAWYER

    WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ADVOCATE AND A LAWYER?

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • The Supreme Court Collegium recommends the appointment of judges to the Gauhati and Manipur High Courts

    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