Havells Vs Panasonic: Delhi Court Restrains Panasonic from selling Fans “Deceptive Similar” to Havells

The Delhi High Court on 31st May, 2022 restrained Panasonic from selling ceiling fans which were deceptive similar to the havells ceiling fans in the case of Havells India Ltd. V. Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.

It was found by the court that Panasonic was selling fans which were deceptively similar in Design to the Havells Fans. In this article we shall discuss some key critique of the Court’s Key findings.


Havells registered its design registration of ceiling fan via its registration number 280666 (’666, effective 2016) and Registration №328605 (’605, effective 2020) respectively. Panasonic newly launched ceiling fans to which havells claimed that its design is similar to the design of Havells ceiling fan which causes design infringement of havells ceiling fan. Therefore design infringement occurs because of the design registration and on the basis of physical features of the fan as well.

Therefore by seeing similarities between the design of fans Havells sued Panasonic in court.

Case Brief

Justice Jyoti Singh opined tha Havells has filed its case for interim injunction against Panasonic for restraining them from using the Fan. It was observed by the court that the design between the two fans is similar. The court further observed that-

“It is prima facie evident from a mere visual comparison that every attempt has been made by Defendant No.1 to come as close as possible to Plaintiff’s Fans.The impugned product has a same shape and configuration, ornamentation on the blade, body ring on bottom cover, layout and placement of the ornamentation. It is relevant to note that not only has the idea of using marble on the blades of the fan has been copied, but even the shape in which it is cut, the size and the metallic border as well as its placement and layout have been substantially copied by Defendant No.1,"

The court issued judgment seeking Havells seeking an interim injunction against Panasonic on grounds of unauthorized imitation, identical reproduction and piracy of their registered Design which would cost infringement under section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000.

The Plaintiff i.e. Havells is the registered Design and is a well known mark in India. Havells had registered the design of its ceiling fan including its flagship “Enticer” range with its some unique, distinct and protected designs.

According to Havells, the Unique Selling Point (USP) of this new series was the artistic work in the floral motif patterns and the unique colour scheme on the trims.

It was submitted that havells registered its copyright as well. It was observed that Havells company was very vigilant about its design from getting infringed by any third party and if anyone does so appropriate legal action is to be taken against them.

The defendants on the other hand i.e. Panasonic refuted all the claims and contended that it has been in the electrical business for over 5 decades now and its contentious 'VENICE PRIME' range was inspired not from Havells' design but from its earlier brand, 'CAPTOR', launched in 2020.

Counsel for Panasonic tried to point out the similarities between the designs by comparing the intersection golden lines on the marble pattern of the Havells Fans with the motifs and colour of their own fan.

It was further said by the counsel that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief.

The Court concurred with the plaintiff and found that there was prima facie evidence of similarities between the designs.

"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", the Court said.

In such a case, the Court was of the opinion that if interim injunction is not granted, irreparable loss shall be caused to Havells, as Panasonic seems to be infringing the design of Havells and passing off its goods as those of the plaintiff's, thereby deceiving the public.