The dispute before the Delhi High Court concerns the alleged imitation of HAVELLS by the Defendants through their use of HAVAI on identical electrical goods. The Plaintiffs, Havells India Limited and Ors., allege that the Defendants, Havai Home Products Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., deliberately adopted a similar stylisation, device marks, colour scheme and overall trade dress with the intent of creating a commercial impression closely resembling that of HAVELLS. While the Defendants rely on their HAVAI registrations and dispute any likelihood of confusion, the Court was called upon to determine whether their actual use constituted prima facie trademark infringement or passing off warranting interim protection.

Plaintiffs in the suit contend:

1. Havells India Limited, incorporated in 1983 and tracing its electrical and power-distribution business to 1942, is the proprietor of the HAVELLS trademarks which forms part of its corporate name.
2. A leading FMEG company in India and abroad, it markets high-quality products under brands including Havells, Reo and Crabtree through extensive retail, digital and customer-service channels.
3. Longstanding use, substantial sales, advertising and promotion have generated significant goodwill in the HAVELLS word and device marks, and HAVELLS has been declared a well-known trademark under the Trademarks Act.
4. Defendant No. 1 has applied for registrations of HAVAI in various classes, several on a proposed-to-be-used basis, while Defendant No. 2 markets HAVAI products through the defendants’ website and third-party platforms including Amazon, Flipkart and IndiaMART.
5. The plaintiffs have opposed several applications and allege that an earlier application filed by Defendant No. 2 was assigned to Defendant No. 1, while another was abandoned following opposition. They contend that the defendants are deliberately pursuing HAVAI registrations to undermine Havells’ proprietary rights.
6. A test purchase through Amazon allegedly showed use of HAVAI in a form deceptively similar to HAVELLS, together with incorrect ISI numbers suggesting BIS compliance. The plaintiffs also allege imitation of their device marks, colour scheme, get-up and layout. In particular, the final “I” in HAVAI was stylised to resemble an “L”, making the mark appear closer to HAVELLS, although Defendant No. 1 was not using its registered mark in its original form.
7. The plaintiffs assert that HAVAI and HAVELLS are visually and phonetically similar and are used for identical goods sold through overlapping channels to the same consumers, creating a likelihood of confusion, association, trademark infringement and passing off.
8. The defendants offered no credible explanation for adopting HAVAI or altering the final letter; the explanation that “HAVA” means air did not account for the stylisation or for products unrelated to air, such as immersion rods. Attempts at an amicable resolution failed because the defendants would not sufficiently modify their marks or colour combinations.

Defendants’ contentions

1. The suit lacked a cause of action as they had never used HAVELLS or any deceptively similar mark.
2. Defendant No. 1 is the registered proprietor of HAVAI in various classes and contended that HAVAI and HAVELLS were neither visually, structurally nor phonetically similar. HAVAI also formed part of Defendant No. 1’s company name, which had been approved by the ROC.
3. No BIS violation was established and that all references to “HAVELLS SPARES” had been removed from their website and literature pursuant to their undertaking to the Court.
4. Being the registered proprietors of HAVAI, they could not be sued for infringement by another registered proprietor. Moreover, “HAV” is common to the trade and cannot be monopolised.
5. The Plaintiffs’ passing off claim was based on mere assumptions, with no evidence of actual deception or confusion, such as consumer complaints or surveys.
6. As per the anti-dissection rule, the rival marks must be compared as a whole and on their overall commercial impression, rather than by dissecting individual elements.
7. A mere possibility of confusion is insufficient; the likelihood must be real and tangible and assessed considering factors such as the nature and resemblance of the marks, goods, class of consumers and purchasing methods.

Court’s analysis and findings

1. In the instant case the Plaintiff has established longstanding statutory and common-law rights in HAVELLS and its formative marks, with use dating to 1942, registration from 1955, substantial sales and advertising, and recognition of HAVELLS as a well-known mark.
2. Although the Defendants relied on their registration for HAVAI, the Court noted that registration is no defence to passing off and that the marks actually used differed materially from the registered mark. The Defendants stylized the letter “I” to resemble “L” and adopted device marks, get-up, and colour schemes similar to HAVELLS, making HAVAI visually and phonetically deceptive.
3. The unexplained departure from the registered form was held to be a mala fide misrepresentation intended to associate the Defendants’ products with HAVELLS and cause consumer confusion.
4. As both parties dealt in identical goods, including fans, coolers, and immersion rods, the likelihood of confusion and initial-interest confusion was heightened.
5. Finding a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable injury in the Plaintiff’s favour, the Court granted a temporary injunction restraining the Defendants from using the impugned HAVAI marks or any mark deceptively similar to HAVELLS during the pendency of the suit.

Comment

The decision underscores that trademark protection extends beyond a mere comparison of registered marks and requires the Court to examine the actual manner of use, overall commercial impression, and likelihood of consumer confusion. Despite the Defendants’ HAVAI registrations, their deliberate stylisation and adoption of a trade dress closely reminiscent of HAVELLS were sufficient to establish a prima facie case of infringement and passing off. The judgment reinforces that minor alterations to a mark or reliance on registration cannot legitimise a deceptive adoption intended to capitalise on the goodwill of an established brand.