Delhi High Court grants restrains Panasonic from selling fans deceptively similar to Havells
Delhi High Court grants restrains Panasonic from selling fans deceptively similar to Havells
The Single judge bench of Justice Jyoti Singh granted an interim injunction in favor of Havells India Limited.
The Delhi High Court in a recent judgment restrained Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt. Ltd from manufacturing, marketing, and selling the Venice Prime Series as it was founded to be deceptively similar to the Enticer Art NS Stone Series by Havells India Limited.
Plaintiff sought relief of an interim injunction on the grounds that there was a blatant imitation by the Defendant of the Plaintiff's fan.
It was further stated that the Plaintiff's USP is its artistic work in floral notify patterns, and also had registered copyright on it.
Defendant engaged in the same industry as the Plaintiff was a competitor and therefore any similarity in its products would lead to confusion and cause prejudice to the consumers. It was also stated that the action of the Defendant is infringing under Section 22 of the Designs Act.
In response to the Plaintiff's allegation, the Defendant contended that the Plaintiff has been hiding material facts of the case. It was contended that the Plaintiff conceded the pendency of challenge against the impugned design registration.
Upon hearing the submissions and contentions in the present case, the Court was of the opinion that the Plaintiff has made a prima facie face that there was indeed an infringement of its rights.
The Court noted that "Section 22 (1) of the Act deals with infringement of a registered design and the tests to determine infringement have been culled out in several judgments. I may only refer to relevant paragraphs from the judgment in Whirlpool (supra)….Applying the aforesaid principles and 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."
Concerning Defendant's allegation of suppressing material facts, the court held that "Plaintiff has till date not received any notice from the Controller of Designs regarding the challenge and thus there is no suppression. In my view, the position adopted by the Plaintiff cannot be faulted with and there is no suppression"
Relying on its observations and analysis, the Court granted an interim injunction in favor of the Plaintiff and thereby restraining the Defendant its C&F agents, dealers, retailers, representatives, assignees, or anyone acting on its behalf from manufacturing, marketing, selling (including on the online platforms) the fans which are identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff till the pendency of the suit.
The matter has been listed before the learned Joint Registrar on 02.08.2022.
