Delhi High Court recently reaffirmed the robust protection accorded to well-known trademarks while granting interim injunctive relief in favour of Havells India Ltd. in a trademark infringement and passing off dispute involving the marks “CAWELS” / “CAWELS ELECTRIC.” The decision underscores the Court’s strict approach towards deceptive similarity and dishonest adoption, particularly where identical goods and digital platforms are involved.

Background

Havells India Ltd. has been engaged in the manufacture and sale of electrical products since 1942 and markets a wide range of goods under the HAVELLS trademark across Classes 7, 9, and 11. The mark “HAVELLS” is a coined word derived from the name of the Plaintiffs’ predecessor and has been in continuous use for over eight decades. Backed by extensive sales, advertising, and promotion, the mark has acquired substantial goodwill and consumer recognition.

Havells holds longstanding trademark registrations for “HAVELLS,” with the earliest dating back to 1955, and the mark forms part of its corporate identity. It has been declared a well-known trademark and enjoys extensive global protection, with over 800 trademark applications and registrations across more than 130 countries, along with copyright registrations in India and abroad.

Discovery of the Impugned Marks

In September 2025, Havells discovered that the Defendant was offering identical electrical products through the website cawelselectric.com under the marks “CAWELS” / “CAWELS ELECTRIC.” The Defendant’s product range included fans, wires and cables, LED products, kettles, smart televisions, induction cooktops, and air coolers, goods directly overlapping with those of Havells.

According to the Plaintiffs, “CAWELS” was a deceptively similar imitation of “HAVELLS,” created through minor letter changes without any independent meaning, clearly intended to misappropriate the Plaintiffs’ goodwill and cause consumer confusion.

A search of the Trademarks Registry records revealed two applications for the impugned marks. One was sought to be expedited by the Defendant despite claims of prior use. The Defendant relied on a ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) issued by a third party whose earlier trademark application for “Cawels Electric” had been opposed by Havells and later abandoned. Havells contended that such an NOC, obtained post-abandonment, conferred no legal rights.

Further, the Defendant, incorporated only in May 2024, had adopted “CAWELS” as its trademark, corporate name, and domain name, aggravating the likelihood of deception.

Rival Contentions

Havells argued that the high phonetic and structural similarity between “HAVELLS” and “CAWELS,” coupled with identical goods and overlapping consumers, established a clear case of infringement and passing off. Continued use of the impugned marks was said to cause dilution of a well-known mark, irreparable reputational harm, and consumer deception, particularly in the absence of apparent mandatory certifications for electrical products.

The Defendant resisted the injunction, asserting that the marks were visually, phonetically, and structurally distinct, and that Havells was attempting to monopolise marks ending in “ELLS.” The Defendant claimed bona fide adoption, stating that “CAWELS” was derived from the initials of its promoter combined with “Wellness.” It was further argued that electrical products are purchased by informed consumers, that no actual confusion had occurred, and that any alleged harm was speculative since the products were yet to be fully launched.

Court’s Findings

The Delhi High Court reiterated that deceptive similarity must be assessed based on the overall impression of the marks as perceived by an average consumer with imperfect recollection. Prima facie, the Court found that both marks shared the dominant suffix “ELLS/ELS,” and that minor variations did not materially alter pronunciation or overall phonetic impact.

The Court rejected the Defendant’s explanation for adoption of the impugned mark, noting that the mark had been adopted prior to the promoter’s appointment, rendering the justification an afterthought. Given HAVELLS’ status as a well-known trademark, the Court held that it was entitled to enhanced protection. Since the goods were identical, the likelihood of confusion was found to be substantial.

Emphasising the digital context, the Court observed that a domain name acts as a badge of origin. The impugned website and corporate name were therefore likely to create a false impression of association with Havells, amounting to infringement and passing off.

Conclusion

Finding that Havells had established a prima facie case, with the balance of convenience in its favour and a likelihood of irreparable harm, the Court granted an interim injunction restraining the Defendant from using the impugned marks, corporate name, and website pending final disposal of the suit.

The decision serves as a cautionary reminder that minor alterations to a well-known mark will not shield infringers from liability, particularly where the adoption is dishonest and the goods are identical. It underscores the judiciary’s resolve to safeguard established brands from imitation across both conventional and digital commercial environments.