Havells India Limited Vs. Cawels Electric Pvt. Ltd.

Havells India Limited and another filed a suit against Cawels Electric Private Limited seeking permanent injunction for trademark infringement, passing off, misrepresentation, dilution, damages, and related reliefs, alleging that the defendant's 'CAWELS' mark is deceptively and phonetically similar to their well-known 'HAVELLS' mark used since 1942 for electrical products, with registrations dating back to 1955 and global presence; the defendant, incorporated in 2024, adopted the impugned mark for similar products like fans and wires, discovered by plaintiffs in September 2025 via the defendant's website, leading to claims of dishonest imitation to usurp goodwill. Procedurally, notice was issued on the interim injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC on 16.10.2025, defendant filed reply, plaintiffs declined rejoinder, and arguments were heard. The court reasoned that the marks share phonetic and structural similarity (e.g., suffix '-ELLS'/' -ELS', minor consonant substitutions like H to C, V to W, one L omitted), likely causing confusion among average consumers with imperfect recollection, especially for identical goods; rejected defendant's origin explanation as afterthought since promoter appointed post-adoption, emphasized higher protection for well-known marks even without proving confusion, noted lack of quality control over defendant's products risking plaintiffs' reputation, and found balance of convenience favoring plaintiffs as prior users with established market over defendant's nascent operations. The court granted interim injunction restraining defendant from using 'CAWELS' or similar marks, corporate name, and website during suit pendency.

• Phonetic similarity constitutes an important index for determining deceptive similarity between marks, and courts must assess overall impression including how marks are spelt and pronounced in commonly used languages: Encore Electronics Ltd. v. Anchor Electronics & Electricals Pvt. Ltd., 2007 SCC OnLine Bom 147, Para 7.
• Comparison of marks must be based on overall impression as perceived by a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, considering phonetic, visual, and structural similarity: Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73, Para 9.
• Plaintiff need only prove likelihood of confusion, not actual confusion, determined by court's subjective comparison of material: Exotic Mile v. Imagine Marketing (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5969, Para 10.
• Well-known marks under Section 2(1)(zg) of Trade Marks Act, 1999, entitle highest degree of protection, extending even to dissimilar goods without needing to prove confusion: Havells India Ltd & Anr. v. M/s TT Plyboard & Ors., CS(OS) 3770/2014 (order dated 08.12.2014), Para 12.
• If defendant's mark is not visually or phonetically similar, injunction cannot be granted: Micolube India Limited v. Rakesh Kumar Trading, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 1950 : (2012) 50 PTC 161, Para 17.
• Overall structural, phonetic, and visual similarity must be examined for deceptive similarity, without presumption of monopoly over dissimilar marks: Rustom and Hornsby Ltd. v. The Zamindara Engineering Co., AIR 1970 SC 1649, Para 16.
• Minor variations in marks do not detract from overall phonetic similarity if likely to cause confusion: Castrol Ltd. v. A.K. Mehta, 1997 SCC OnLine Del 342, Para 23.
• Use of deceptively similar domain names and corporate names can amount to infringement and passing off by misleading users: Intercontinental Great Brands v. Parle Product (P) Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 728, Paras 14-15.
• For electrical products, extra caution warranted due to safety concerns, and balance of convenience favors prior user over nascent defendant: CROCS INC v. Registrar of Trademarks, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6276, Para 17.

Case Title: Havells India Limited Vs. Cawels Electric Pvt. Ltd. Order Date: 01.12.2025 Case Number: CS(COMM) 1122/2025 Neutral Citation: Not available Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Name of Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia

[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation] [Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]