top of page

Prima facie evident that Panasonic is selling deceptively similar fans asHavells:

Updated: Jun 4, 2022

CASE: Havells India Ltd. v. Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.

Havells approached the court seeking the relief of injunction against Panasonic, alleging that the Defendant in its ‘Venice Prime’ series, is imitating and reproducing identical designs as the Plaintiff’s design in ‘Enticer’ series, which infringes the right of the Plaintiff granted under Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000. The Plaintiff informed the court that it is a market leader with respect to its ceiling fans and even has its designs registered, including the ‘Enticer’ series and such near replicas by the Defendant could deceive or cause confusion among the customers, hence affecting the business and goodwill of the Plaintiff. In his defence the Defendant contended that, its ‘Venice Prime’ series is inspired from its earlier brand Captor which was launched in 2020 and is not a replica of the Plaintiffs design and no monopoly can be claimed over a concept ie; stone/marble print which is common or already exists. The Delhi High Court held that, the Defendant is restrained from manufacturing, marketing,selling the fans of ‘Venice Prime’ series as the Defendant has slavishly copied the designs of the Plaintiff and balance of convenience also lies in the favour of Plaintiff. (CASE: Havells India Ltd. v. Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.) ​

26 views0 comments
bottom of page