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: , 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: , 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., 2 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: Para 12.
- If defendant's mark is not visually or phonetically similar, injunction cannot be granted: , Para 17.
- Overall structural, phonetic, and visual similarity must be examined for deceptive similarity, without presumption of monopoly over dissimilar marks: Para 16.
- Minor variations in marks do not detract from overall phonetic similarity if likely to cause confusion: Para 23.
- Use of deceptively similar domain names and corporate names can amount to infringement and passing off by misleading users: Paras 14-15.
- For electrical products, extra caution warranted due to safety concerns, and balance of convenience favors prior user over nascent defendant: Para 17.
